Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 4

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three Hammers

Three Hammers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Page fails to assert notability for the product, and product does not appear to be more notable than any other variety of cider. Googling "Three Hammers" turns up a page for several other institutions named "Three Hammers, but this article is the only one related to the cider on Page 1, and it's #8 at that. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep -- seems to be well-known elsewhere. http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=131103 -- "In the Costcutters near to my house, they sell an almost mystical cider called Three Hammers, the audience for which is almost exclusively tramps. The logo of said beverage simply consists of three hastily scanned pictures of crap pound-shop hammers." Needs much more in the way of sourcing, though.--SarekOfVulcan 00:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is plenty notable in the UK. Blatant US-centrism. Bacchiad 12:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep.Do not delete the Three hammers page. I was browsing for Three hammers cider and this was the only thing information I could find.

This drink is legendary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazzlad (talk • contribs) 15:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Bacchiad.--Bedivere 20:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PeaceNT 12:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas E. Levy

Thomas E. Levy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

• Delete: Per WP:PROF, WP:V, WP:FRINGE, and WP:SPAM.
  

1. WP:PROF: A simple pubmed search on "Levy TE" demonstrates only one publication and a Google Scholar search yields the same paucity of publications.
2. WP:PROF: The standard of "this academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor" is often cited. Indeed, Thomas Levy is less notable than the average college instructor as he has less publications and only self-published references.
3. WP:V: Specifically, WP:SPS. Other than the one minor paper he has in Altern Med Review, all the other sources to this article are from his own books, or to his website.
4. WP:FRINGE: And I quote, In order to be notable, a non-mainstream theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication. One minor publication in a small Alt Med journal and self-published books hardly count as extensive, serious, or major.
5. WP:SPAM: All this referencing to the individual's own buisness page and "Dr. Levy's newest book, has an Amazon.com sales rank of #73,329" smacks of self promotion.

Djma12 ^(talk) 23:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I've just re-read WP:Fringe and I think this fails that criterion. The books listed as published by LivOn Books are the only two books that publisher issues -- self-publishing. Xlibris Corporation is a self-publishing company. The McGraw-Hill book is from an imprint devoted to "alternative therapy" and I don't think any of the books I saw would pass WP:Fringe; similarly Hampton Roads. A website called www.quackwatch.org has "Journal of Advancement in Medicine" and "Alternative Medicine Review" on its list of "Nonrecommended periodicals", which seems to dispose of the two "peer-reviewed journals" on the list of publications. (Journal of Advancement in Medicine changed publishers and became less authoritative some years ago, according to my research.) In addition, as per the nomination above, my Google search didn't reveal any extensive and/or serious references in any major mainstream publication -- by anyone else except Dr. Levy. Also according to WP:Fringe, "Efforts of fringe-theory inventors to shill on behalf of their theories, such as duplicitously offering self-published books for sale under the guise of "references", should be strongly frowned upon". And I think referencing your own Amazon.com sales rank "smacks of self-promotion", also as per the nom. All things considered, I can't support this article being in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Accounting4Taste (talk • contribs) 00:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• It's not selfpromotion, as I, who entered the sales rank, am not Dr. Levy, nor am I his agent. my understanding is that for some authors, amazon sales rank establishes notability. I agree that as it stands, this article doesn't establish notability.--Alterrabe 21:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete- well spotted.JJJ999 00:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as given, unless there can be found references to other people talking about the work.DGG (talk) 08:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as DGG writes, unless someone adds suitable references.--Alterrabe 21:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 03:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC Some authors have justified their notability
• Delete Surely not notable.--Bedivere 20:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John 'Haystacks' Maguire

John 'Haystacks' Maguire (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

GS&MPU (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• I've added this article in, having looked at it, because it is recent, unsourced, by the same editor, and looks, on the WP:DUCK basis, to be WP:MADEUP, if not WP:HOAX. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 00:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

0 non-wiki ghits for "Haystacks Maguire"; non-wiki ghits for "John Maguire" + any of several prominent terms in article don't give hits that show notability. No sources in article that show notability. Original editor placed "hangon" tag when article was speedied. I assume this means a prod will be contested, so I'm taking it to AfD. Fabrictramp 23:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Lacking in both sourcing and credibility on several fronts. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 23:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I have to agree, I can't find any Google hits for anything claimed in this article, EA's gaming materials don't reveal his name (re the "sanctioned tournaments") AFAIK. There may be local Australian materials that cite him, but I can't see that that's sufficient notability to pass WP:BIO. Accounting4Taste 00:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As well as GS&MPU, also from this editor. Into The Fray ^T/C 01:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

D'oh. I didn't realize that GS&MPU had been nom'd here too. *scurries off to fix his relisting* Into The Fray ^T/C 01:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, not sure if it was the right way to go about it, but I pointed my tag on GS&MPU here as well. Cheers, Into The Fray ^T/C 01:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. non-notable. Renee 01:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This editor has been busy. [1], [2], [3]. His love of cats notwithstanding, I for one would be looking for a gesture of bona fides here. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 01:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable bio. Tiptoety 02:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No sources have been cited and none seem to be available. Certainly, Google News and News Archives come up with nothing. Capitalistroadster 03:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster 03:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

C'mon - Delete Tiptopper 23:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - NN. Llajwa 15:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Judas Goat One finds it quite sad when ones attempts to contribute rare gems to the vast knowledgebase that it Wikipedia, that ones efforts are viewed in such a cynical light. Simply because these entries don't light up the diodes at Google doesn't mean that they don't exist - indeed, there are 826 mentions of the ficticious Lawrence Wrenngrodd [4]16:38, October 8th 2007 (AET) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 06:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Yes, but he's patently fictitious and dressed up to look as if he's real. Looks like my plea for evidence of bona fides went unheard --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 06:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as not having any assertion of notability, much less any [[WP:|verifiable]] or reliable sources. Judas Goat's arguments -- some fictional guy has more Ghits, and "Haystacks is a gem" -- amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT, respectively. Also, the last section, about some tourney that might happen in 2008, badly violates WP:CRYSTAL. Bearian'sBooties 19:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Henry Williams

William Henry Williams (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Subject falls short of WP:BIO. Running schools is not notability & no major contributions to the enduring historical record. ExtraDry 23:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 07:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This nomination is no more than disruptive AfD Cruft. Williams did not just run schools but was a classics professor. If he is notable enough for an article in the Australian Dictionary of Biography he is notable enough for Wikipedia. Have either of the nomnator or there supporter bothered to read the ADB reference? Archifile 05:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

— Archifile (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• • Comment Most if not all of Archifile (talk • contribs) are to do with Newington College & if you have any problem with the size of the template you can discuss it on the templates talk page. ExtraDry 11:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That was added by a another editor and not part of the template hence it was removed. Why dont you get back to adding SchoolCruft instead of worrying about little things.ExtraDry 12:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't be a smart arse. ExtraDry 12:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Definite keep "Professor of Classics and English Literature at the newly established University of Tasmania. ... Dean of the Faculty of Arts and served as a trustee of the State Library of Tasmania" That is surely enough. I have commented previously my puzzlement at the AfDs on articles about australia headmasters. Headmasters of major secondary schools are important, and are so considered in other countries with similar educational systems, and I can't see why they are less important in Australia. But in any case, he has major additional notability as well. DGG 09:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Archifile and DGG, especially the Australian Dictionary of Biography entry [5] (though further editing to remove close similarities in wording would be advantageous). Espresso Addict 10:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I can't understand how there's any doubt.--Bedivere 20:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Euryalus 06:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There is international consensus on this one: Headmasters of very notable schools are notable. This school is very notable, and so is its headmaster. This is pure AfD Cruft. Twenty Years 07:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Differences between the book and film versions of The Da Vinci Code

Differences between the book and film versions of The Da Vinci Code (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Original research based on primary sources. `'Míkka 23:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom -- consists of entirely original research. Is nothing but pure listcruft on differences that only a fan would care about. Kill it before it spreads. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom for being purely OR Bfigura ^(talk) 00:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom. I remember Harry Potter versions of the article being deleted on the same grounds--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as it lacks notability as well. --Stormbay 20:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - NN. But some of the info could be incorporated in the movie's page. Llajwa 15:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with film article, people (myself included) actually go to Wikipedia to look for this kind of fascinating and usually well-put together information that can easily be verified by reading the book and watching the film. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. User:DragonflySixtyseven

[edit] The Adventures of Peter Warren Hatcher

No sources, no explanation as to where this show is televised, zero Google hits with this name. Hoax? Corvus cornix 23:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:HOAX. Also, may I remind the creator that Wikipedia is not for things made up whilst bored at school one day? NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete--JForget 22:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wally Zaher

Wally Zaher (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

0 non-wiki ghits. Very surprising for someone who was "recognized by club A.S. Roma and they signed him to a 7 year, 6.23 million dollar contract". Contested prod. Fabrictramp 23:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Neither Wikipedia (A.S. Roma) nor the club's own website [6] list this individual as being on the team. I can't find any other Google reference to this individual whatsoever. Fails WP:Verifiability, and that's being polite -- this seems as though it's complete nonsense. Accounting4Taste 00:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete An obvious pack of lies, a club of the stature of Roma would very obviously not have a 15-year old playing for their first team, nor would a player commute from the USA to Italy to play. Just a load of self-aggrandising garbage from a bored teenager. ChrisTheDude 08:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A hoax methinks. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the picture of Theo Walcott is a largest of many giveaways that this is a hoax. ArtVandelay13 08:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Moved from the talk page, for what it's worth: i believe this page should not be deleted because this talks about the Life of wally zaher and his carrer as a soccer player. (C0lts87 22:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC))
• Comment As this article has been speedy deleted multiple times before, can we speedy close and salt....? ChrisTheDude 11:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Complete hoax. As well as said picture of Walcott, the reference to Pro Evo Football gives it away too. Peanut4 12:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Additional comment His cousin is Bellal Amerkhail who is also up for deletion. Dodgy picture. No references. No links to him on Google. The author has never written anything else. And by the looks of it he hasn't written much in school. Can this not be speedily deleted? Peanut4 18:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and prevent re-creation - obvious hoax. --Daemonic Kangaroo 19:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PeaceNT 12:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dialsoul

Dialsoul (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Abandoned page. Tagged for sources/cleanup since December of 05 with no significant improvement in the article. No evidence of WP:N. Avruch 23:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no claim to notability. Fee Fi Foe Fum 03:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per A7, no notablity claimed in article. A1octopus 11:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per User:A1octopus--Bedivere 21:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Wizardman 03:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marketization

Marketization (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Tagged for cleanup since 12/2005 and sources since 06/2006 but no sources have been added. No evidence of WP:N or verifiability. Avruch 22:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisting for additional comments Avruch^Talk 22:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless decent examples of the term being used in that way can be found. Artw 23:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge sourced material with economic liberalization or some such. Bacchiad 12:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• And comment. Why wasn't a redirect attempt made already? Bacchiad 12:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

What sourced material? Avruch^Talk 13:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as it appears to be a notable concept. Rescue? Bearian'sBooties 19:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Undoubtedly notable.--Bedivere 21:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Definatly notable, over 12000 Google Scholar results, 7 Google News Results, over 1000 Google Book results. The article needs citing, but I can't do it now. - Fosnez 02:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Just saying 'Notable' or 'Notable per Google hits' doesn't really argue effectively for notability. This concept isn't addressed specifically in any of the top hits on the Google or Google scholar results. It appears to mean a number of different things, typically along the lines of privatization or partial privatization. It should be deleted or stubbed until someone can provide some evidence that the concept as described in this page actually exists/is used. Avruch^Talk 22:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Boring as watching paint dry, to me, but certainly notable. I've added a further reading section with a dozen books on the subject including Social Welfare and the Market: Papers from a Conference on Marketisation which seems to evidence that at least a notable conference was held on the subject. I suggest that the lede be expanded to explain the subject a bit better with plenty of wikilinks to the many business and economics articles that intertwine with marketization topics including Milton Friedman. The fluff a bit about regional/global variationsBenjiboi 17:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I've added two references in the introduction. Topic is definitely notable. -- Vision Thing -- 21:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I've left a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics regarding this article

Comment. I've left a note at Portal:Business and economics regarding this article

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Non-notable club, lack of reliable third-party references. PeaceNT 14:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ferry Athletic YFC

Ferry Athletic YFC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I think youth football teams fail the notability requirements. Corvus cornix 22:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• I feel this is an interesting article and is doing no harm. This is giving people a chance to view information about a youth football club that normally would be unavailable. Tannadice25 08:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Note Tannadice25 is the article's creator and sole editor to date, and also has a COI as he plays for the team in question

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This could have been prodded or even speedied before AfD. Totally totally non-notable. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• I don't understand what is wrong with my article. Albeit it is not finished yet and I still need to add more history and relevant details but this is the page of one of the largest youth football clubs in Dundee. This is certainly not non-notable. Tannadice25 08:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. Notability is asserted through the presence of independent third party references to the club. The fact that the club has only 63 Ghits, several of which are not actually about to the club anyway, and only one mention in a local newspaper (a letter complaining about foul language from 2005) aside from fixture lists shows that it is not notable. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• If you search for it, you actually get 2700 results. How can you base how notable it is by how many results are returned on the internet? As my article says Ferry Athletic has a feeder partnership with Celtic (and you can't really get much more notable than that in Scotland). It is also well known throughout Dundee as a high standard football club. I know opinions of notability can vary but I feel this makes a worthy addition to Wikipedia and defdinately cannot see any harm in it being included. Tannadice25 09:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Most of your 2700 results are actually for Briton Ferry Athletic F.C., a Welsh adult team ChrisTheDude 09:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    • As Chris says, your search is compromised by the presence of another club with part of the same name - my search excluded pages with Briton, Britton, and a couple of other organisations with Ferry Athletic in the title, resulting in only 63 hits, still not all of which were about the team. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorry did not read the results properly. How is this settled? Tannadice25 10:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Take a look at WP:RS. You need to provide details of where reliable independent third-party sources (ie not the club's own website, MySpace, a player's blog, etc) have given coverage to the subject in order to prove the subject's notability and thereby keep the article. ChrisTheDude 10:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A completely non notable team. This could probably be speedied under CSD A7. Youth football clubs are hardly ever notable, particularly ones that play in a park on Sunday afternoons. All of the blue linked players in the article are not associated with this team. One is a DT for the Steelers and another one plays rugby. The rest are associated with other sports, but I'm not going to list all of them. --Cyrus Andiron 12:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Retain I believe this is interesting and unusual and we should start looking to expand our knowledge base by making more uncommon pages like this one. Holly no1 17:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Holly no1 (talk · contribs) has no contributions outside this AfD

• Strong delete - totally non-notable. Qwghlm 11:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete - a long long way below notability requirements. Robotforaday 20:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - This information is appropriate for the organization's page, not notable in the sense required for an encyclopedia. Llajwa 15:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PeaceNT 12:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] September 2007 Scandinavian Airlines Q400 incidents

September 2007 Scandinavian Airlines Q400 incidents (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The events in this article exist in their own pages: Scandinavian Airlines Flight 1209 and Scandinavian Airlines Flight 2748. This article is redundant. Also, both pages were nominated for deletion and survived (see here and here). – Zntrip 22:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, redundant. Fee Fi Foe Fum 03:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - agree with above. Llajwa 15:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Bedivere 21:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy relegation to the realm of Forgotten Tales Made Up In School One Day. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Korbi

Korbi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Completely fake data (WP:HOAX)   Avg    22:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:HOAX; Queen of the sea monkeys? Right. May I remind the creator that Wikipedia is not a place for things made up whilst bored in school one day. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article states that the name is derived from "Korbissis", which returns one single ghit back to WP. Drown it. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Complete nonsense. Regardless of what your girlfriend's name is, Wikipedia is not a place for things made up while bored in school one day (thanks, NASCAR Fan24). Accounting4Taste 23:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above editors. No sources to verify content. --Hdt83 ^Chat 00:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the excellent reasons above. Not notable or verifiable. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Meh. The whole thing is not only a hoax but an attack page and a piece of simple vandalism. Just look at the page history. Incredible it has sat around for this long. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn. It is clear to me that the community likes this article and wants to keep it. It is unfortunate that it will only continue to deteriorate into a gigantic repository of trivia over the next several months, and never become a real comprehensive encyclopedic article. Revisit this in 6 months and prove me wrong. Burntsauce 16:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goldfish swallowing

Suggest deletion of this trivial fad. Sources consist of a letter (not an article, a letter) to The New York Times and a puerile filler piece from Time Magazine. There is nothing notable or encyclopedic to be seen here. Burntsauce 22:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep, well-known fad of the 1930s, Time magazine is a reliable source whether or not you think it's "puerile". NawlinWiki 22:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please cite evidence of this being a well-known fad, as the Time magazine does not imply that is, puerile or not. Burntsauce 22:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Here's a link to "College Fads" in Benjamin Griffith, The St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture, describing goldfish swallowing as an "iconic marker" of the 1930s. NawlinWiki 23:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per NawlinWiki. <offtopic> And by the way, this is my 1500th edit! =) </offtopic> NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment — the Time article can be found here. I'll add it to the article now. --Agüeybaná 22:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Plenty of sources [7] [8] I know some may argue that one of those may not be credible, but it only confirms what is already given as reliable sources in the article itself. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, well-known and well-documented fad. Corvus cornix 22:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Just checked google, found out that a church seems to have stopped practicing it. [9]. Freaky but notable. --Lenticel ^(talk) 22:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. None of these so-called speedy keeps are valid. Once you remove the unfounded speculation and editorializing from the article, you are left with a sentence that says "Goldfish swallowing was a college fad of the late 1930's, consisting of exactly what its name implies." As much as that may bring a smile to your face and make you giggle, an encyclopedic article it is not. Burntsauce 22:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That's not a deletion criterion. It's well known and it's documented. The article right now is a mess, but it can be improved. Corvus cornix 23:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There may not be much to say about it, though a little expansion on the origin, history, and decline would definitely be useful, but it is a notable and real fad and the sort of thing I can see wanting to look up. —Quasirandom 23:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. A bit more historical than Fart lighting, despite the analogy. Mandsford 23:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete we already have an article on swallowing. we already have an article on goldfish. the fact you can do one with the other is not something we need an article for.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• We have articles on George, on W, and on bush too. Mandsford 15:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable - added ref suggested by User:Lenticel. More info is available at [10]. Hal peridol 00:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, at least one reliable source has been added, I'm sure there're plenty more. This is a fad that's been around for decades, and a very well-known fad at that. I would argue a solid keep but I'm not entirely sure on how this can be expanded to more than a stub. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the arguments above. I've added the St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture article that NawlinWiki found to the article's external links. Deor 00:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This college fad of the 1930's received substantial coverage in multiple independent sources, satisfying WP:N. Most of the stories are behing the paywall, but a visit to many libraries can retrieve them free via Proquest. See a 242 word article about it the New York Times, March 31, 1939,[11], a 285 word story , same paper, April 1, 1939 [12] . See "A Panorama of American Life Between Two World Wars; I REMEMBER..." New York Times - Sep 7, 1947, which includes the phrase "... But the evidence given here indicates that even goldfish swallowing was A non-typical aberration." per [13]. In that same search note "Find Gold Fish Gulping Had Early Predecessor," New York Times - Apr 23, 1939 which includes "The idea of eating phonograph records, The new high in the current college "Gold Fish" swallowing fad, was anticipated thirty-six years ago by a British...;" see "MORAL BREAKDOWN AT COLLEGES DENIED; Survey Shows Educators Call...New York Times - Jan 13, 1950 which includes "Dr. Waiters remarked 'that I'd say that the old collegiate rah-rah goldfish swallowing days are over. Students pay more attention to campus civ.." A perspective several years after the fad which shows it was notable is "Ate Goldfish, Now Directs Radio Work" in the Hartford Courant - ProQuest Archiver - Oct 13, 1947A, which says "...college student who gained national fame eight years ago as "living aquarium" after swallowing 42 live Goldfish today is A West Hartford Radio executive." A judgement of "national fame" is strong support for the notability of the fad. From Google Books, search 1920-1950 see [14]. It was used in Nazi propaganda to show American decadance "Comic Books--municipal Control of Sale and Distribution--a Preliminary Study ...by Charles S. Rhyne, University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign campus). Institute of Communications Research, Wilbur Lang Schramm - 1948 - 16 pages: "Goebbels, for example, used our newsreel shots of lynching, goldfish swallowing, flag-pole sitting, etc., to show the decadence of American civilization." from same Google Books search. Edison 03:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per numerous citations of popularity, and Nawlinswiki's assertions. ThuranX 03:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve the article if it needs it. Covering popular culture is well within the remit of Wikipedia and something it generally does rather well, even if it's beneath the standards of certain editors. (And how unfortunate that Goebbels had lynching to hold against us in the first place, let alone equate with this.) --Dhartung | Talk 09:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Also, Edison's links really need to be added. Turlo Lomon 09:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete by Pascal.Tesson with the reason "CSD G11: Blatant Advertising". Non-admin close. Bongwarrior 08:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BerryLine

BerryLine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable yogurt shop. Corvus cornix 22:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete And why should an article about a Cambridge, MA yogurt shop be on Wikipedia? It shouldn't, that's why. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nothing notable other than it's location. Ridernyc 22:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Farhan Masood

Farhan Masood (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No sources for claims of notability for Mr. Masood as the person who "originate[d] Urdu, Arabic, Persian, Pushto, Sindhi, Punjabi characters for the first time on the Internet in the world with the use of his Urdu Internet Technology." Author removed an {{unsourced}} tag (as well as a prod tag) without adding sources or expanding article. NawlinWiki 22:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete As well as failing WP:BIO and having no sources, the article's "end" is a stop mid-sentence ("...changed the fortune of the language, since it"). NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. A number of Google hits for different people with this name, but no one whose biographic information comes anywhere close to these claims; fails WP:Verifiable. Accounting4Taste 23:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Sc straker 01:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Is it a hoax?--Bedivere 21:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post trauma dilemma

Post trauma dilemma (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced since marchh, not berifiable via google, orphan. looks like original essay to me `'Míkka 22:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• delete Once result on google: Wikipedia. Martial BACQUET 22:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Sounds like PTSD, but with no sources! humblefool® 04:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:OR, WP:POV, and WP:NEO. Bearian'sBooties 20:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted as copyright violation: cut and paste from Academic Press. `'Míkka 22:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rothschild (Faberge Egg)

Rothschild (Faberge Egg) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper Corvus cornix 21:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 21:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - While the keep reasoning agrees that reliable sources need to be found (which is self-evident), insufficient reliable source material was presented in this AfD nor was it made clear that such material had a realistic chance of being located. Information taken from the plot itself is not independent reliable source material. Consensus is that there is not enough reliable source material independent of the entries themselves to create an attributable article on the topic. Also, making inferences about the psychiatric diagnoses of fictional characters is both subjective (thus POV) and original research and consensus is that this list was original research. -- Jreferee t/c 03:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional characters with posttraumatic stress disorder

List of fictional characters with posttraumatic stress disorder (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Hopeless huge original research, starting right from Hobbits. Even the list of "real" ones was deleted. `'Míkka 21:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It is OR, if not double OR, compiled by an armchair psychologist diagnosing what might be signs of PTSD in movie and TV characters. This seems to be based on person who (a) is depicted as living through something that looks like a trauma and (b) looks like he is "acting strange". There are very few examples of a plot where it is frankly stated that the person has PTSD. Clint Eastwood's character in Firefox and Bruce Dern in Black Sunday may have been described as having PTSD, but most of these are suggested. Mandsford 22:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Lol. Dont think i need to say much more...Operating 22:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Frodo Baggins. That is all. Artw 22:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. OR, and no use. Crazysuit 06:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and edit as long as there are a few who have been actually described as this, either in the plot itself or in the reviews, such as 12 O;Clock High, the article will hold. (Frodo is OR as far as I know--though Tolkien may quite possibly have had it mind--and the extensive literature or LOTR might possibly discuss it. ) We do not delete articles where some of the items do not belong. Nor do we delete on the basis of finding one questionable entry and making fun of it. DGG (talk) 08:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and source. A valid encyclopedia topic, though pruning and sourcing to secondary literature is required. Personally I think it would be more interesting refocused as a discussion rather than a list, but perhaps such an article will emerge if the present one is left to evolve. As to Frodo, given the large amount of literature connecting The Lord of the Rings with Tolkien's WWI experiences, an association between Frodo and shell shock seems reasonable; I will attempt to find a suitable reference for this. Espresso Addict 09:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Making inferences about the psychiatric diagnoses of fictional characters is both subjective (thus POV) and original research. Bacchiad 12:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

if you know some of the movies, you will know they are more than inferences. But this will be settled not by you & me arguing about it, but by the insertion of sources. probably it should be made clear in the introduction. that PTSD = shell shock, because that's the term used in discussing the earlier works. If necessary the title of the article can be changed to accommodate this. DGG (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete this list will never be sourced and willl quickly grow out of control. Every character that has ever had any sort of mental problem will be added to the list. Ridernyc 18:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: as per users Ridernyc and Bacchiad. Inthegloryofthelilies 15:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG and Espresso Addict. Well-organized lists are useful reference tools. Cleaning up and sourcing always helps of course. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is clearly original research, and yet another massive trivial list that doesn't belong here. RobJ1981 18:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

yes its a long list--even massive, and it will be even more imposing when fully documented. . A important topic, apparently. "Doesnt belong here" = IDONTLIKEIT. DGG (talk) 03:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. I could say the same thing about your keep comment, as you vote keep in all fictional AFDs. So that falls under ILIKEIT. Stop being petty, by attacking my comments. RobJ1981 07:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and source - if DGG can provide reliable 3rd-party sources that identify each list member as having PTSS, I see no reason to delete it. The Transhumanist 22:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and source per above.Biophys 23:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and source, it is helpful for those who need to understand PTSD for the sake of a loved one. It shows not only soldiers can get shell shock.
• One shot at keep and cleanup Give the article one shot at a keep and cleanup outcome. If it comes back here (after a suitable amount of time) and still/again contains such flagrant violations of WP:NOR then it should go. What can stay in the article? Cases where 1) another character in the same work of fiction says this character has been so diagnosed and that statement is properly cited (verifiable as not requiring interpretation of the source), 2) cases where the author has published in a reliable source that the character has PTSD and that authorial statement is cited, and maybe also 3) cases where a reliable source on the subject of the psychological disorders of fictional characters has published that the fictional character hsa PTSD, and that reliable source publication is properly cited. I doubt that any reliable sources that can meet test 3 exist, but give it enough time and this will no doubt become an academic specialty all its own. GRBerry 16:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, sourceless, whoever wants it the most, work on it in your userspace. SolidPlaid 02:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PeaceNT 12:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neeraj Khajanchi

Neeraj Khajanchi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Only a small claim of notability in article, with no sources offered to back up claims. First several pages of non-wiki ghits don't show notability. Original author placed "hangon" tag on speedy. I assume they will also contest a prod, so I'm taking this straight to AfD. Fabrictramp 21:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable sources, poor claim of notability. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It was going to be "weak delete" per NASCAR Fan24 till i noticed the blatant conflict of interest in the creator's username. tomasz. 13:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete on grounds of notability and CoI.--Bedivere 21:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Celebrity endorsed perfumes

List of Celebrity endorsed perfumes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Another list that seems useless. Ridernyc 21:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete <rant> I wonder how long it will take for people to realise that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and we don't need lists of everything! </rant> Seriously, this is about the 20th listcruft article listed on AfD since last weekend. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • If I nominated everyone I come across we would need a new category for listcruft. These are just the ones I'm finding as I patrol new articles. Ridernyc 22:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment This list was created on October 4th, 2007. I believe it was very unfair of you to nominate it for deletion so soon after its good faith creation. Fee Fi Foe Fum 04:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Not technically an indiscriminate list, although not very useful either. An indiscriminate list is one that does not discriminate between various items within a list, and conveys no information except that the items have something in common as indicated by the title. Generally, these are nothing but blue-links, whereas in this case a little (very little) information is added, such as the names of the perfumes endorsed by the celeb. At this time, most of this seems to be original research, culled from advertisements.

Nor is this a frivolous article. One would expect that there probably are some articles available about the perfume industry, whose revenues depend, more than most products, on a celebrity endorsement, something that's been true since the days of Coco Chanel. Shopping for a scent is generally an act of faith, since it's impractical to test each product in advance. This can be improved quite easily. Mandsford 22:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I interpret indiscriminate differently--it is one that includes every possible item or company in an a group without limiting itself to the important ones. The discrimination is betweeen the ones included and the ones not included. DGG (talk) 08:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and Expand Perhaps it needs a title change, but those darn celebs keep coming out with perfumes, and this list is handy. It certainly is not indiscriminate. Fee Fi Foe Fum 03:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

what exactly is it handy for?Ridernyc 05:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Arbitrary, indiscriminate and incomplete list. They seem to believe celebrities only exist in the present. See for instance "Svetlana's Breath," the Soviet perfume endorsed by Svetlana Stalin [15] [16]. Perhaps recentism is a consequence of original research. Edison 03:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There, I added "* Svetlana Stalin: Svetlana's Breath" to the list. Problem solved; lets keep and expand the list. Fee Fi Foe Fum 04:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Were there any other celebrities who endorsed perfumes other than the now-famous individuals listed, like in previous decades? Elizabeth Taylor comes to mind, but what about in the 20's 30's 40's etc? The article needs sources, not just original research. Didn't Joan Crawford promote "Jungle Gardenia?" Didn't Marilyn Monroe say she wore nothing to bed but "Chanel No 5?" Edison 07:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Reply: I think that if you are interpreting "incomplete" as an argument for deletion, you don't understand the Wikipedia model at all. -- 192.250.34.161 12:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply I understand very well that we do not have articles with arbitrary listings of things an editor likes, chosen by their original research, and not sourced to any secondary reliable source. I have shown that the list is arbitrary and indiscriminate, and not based on well defined criteria. Edison 17:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing is a legitimate concern. "Arbitrary" and "indiscriminate", at least as you seem to be using the words, are side-effects of the very model upon which Wikipedia operates, just as "incomplete" is. As for "original research", do you think the original research is in deeming that Christina Aguilera is a celebrity, or that she endorses the perfume which bears her name? -- 192.250.34.161 18:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and expand An exceptional business model. Needs an article too. Add references and I would like to see the year each was introduced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and improve. I think this AFD is another sad example of people using "xxxxcruft" when they really mean is "an xxxx that I don't like" -- in other words, the nominator rails against listcruft without giving a hint as to what he believes the difference is between a useful list and a listcruft list. I believe that the celebrity-endorsement model of perfume marketing is an intriguing aspect of the culture behind perfumes, and some of the examples that are in this list, or could be on this list, make that even more apparent. I would like to see this list improved with more organization, such as classification by decade, and by noting those celebrities who fall outside the expected image of perfume-endorsing celebrities (for example: Alan Cumming, Svetlana Stalin, Kiss, Marilyn Manson...) -- 192.250.34.161 12:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I created this list only because it's part of the Perfume article and it was (IMO) starting to really degrade that article. If people must have a list of celebrity perfumes (and people keep adding to it on the Perfume article, so presumably they do) let's keep it separate from Perfume. For the record, I don't think it's particularly interesting either. Wjousts 12:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't like list articles in general. But as lists go, this one is pretty focused and coherent - compare to the other list articles on today's AfD. Moreover, this is a useful list, if you're interested in research on celebrity marketing or perfumes. Bacchiad 12:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree that wikipedia doesn't need a list of everything, but you never know if people will be curious about a topic like this. For example, I noticed that a lot of celebrities have a perfumes, but before I saw this list, I didn't know there were that many. MaJic 15:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - one of those subjects which verges on list cruft/trivia, but then again I would hate to see as a category. Its not technically an indiscriminate list, although I can't imagine anyone but those who have annual subscriptions to at least three celebrity magazines would find it useful. If its to stay, needs some work. Rgds, --Trident13 13:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This seems worthwhile - I agree with the anonymous "keep and improve" comment above. Llajwa 15:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Not every list is listcruft. This is the sort of thing that people value Wikipedia for.--Bedivere 21:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Cryer

Tom Cryer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I came upon this article via an RfC filed over its neutrality. There has been extensive debate over various issues regarding it, before and after the filing of its RfC, which filing has now been replaced by a filing with the Mediation Cabal. Regardless of that, my chief concern has been over its notability. While a popular figure recently with tax protestors (Cryer was acquitted on tax evasion charges in July), there remains the fact that this article is sourced by only one two secondary sources (though there are several primary sources, including court documents and Cryer's soapbox website). An acquittal on tax evasion is not enough to be notable. Being an attorney is not enough to be notable. There is only one relevant, reliable secondary news source for the article, which I believe fails WP:BIO. Before we continue with the Cabal case, I wanted to express my concerns over its notability here and seek community-consensus on the issue. I believe it should be deleted. Into The Fray ^T/C 21:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• keep I stumbled upon Cryer's case a few months while looking into the whole discussion concerning the legality of the income tax. Considering the importance of the issue in the upcoming election, mostly with Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul campaigning to abolish the IRS and the income tax with it, I believe there's no reason to delete the article (au contraire). -Bruce 20:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• weak keep I feel that editor Into The Fray has some good arguments, though. I am torn on this issue, but I would give it a "weak keep" -- with the fact that Tom Cryer is a tax protester pushing it just slightly over the top. It's very rare for a tax protester to be acquitted in a criminal tax case. The usual idiocy on the internet weblogs includes a repeat of the bizarre argument that when someone is acquitted of a crime, that this somehow means that the court found or ruled that the law itself does not exist (with the tax protester bloggers not realizing that the court in Cryer's own case specifically ruled against those very arguments, and with bloggers not realizing that there is a big difference between a jury "not guilty" verdict and a judge's ruling on a point of law). I think maybe we might be able to find more secondary sources later than could show more notability for Cryer. I won't cry if the article is deleted, though. Famspear 20:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• weak keep As one of the few tax protesters to be acquitted while still making tax protester arguments, I feel he has adequate notability. (The exact number is unclear, but I believe it to be 3.) As for secondary sources, he's named in the tax protester FAQ. There are few secondary sources specifically about him, but there are a number which mention him among other tax protesters. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• delete and merge (through redirect) into Tax protester history (specifically, add a paragraph mentioning him in the section Notable tax protesters). There is nothing inherently notable about Tom Cryer or his case. In my opinion, the fact that he is one of only a few tax protesters to be acquitted of tax evasion is not notable. His tax protester arguments had nothing to do with his acquittal. His acquittal may be unusual but it is not significant. The acquittal affects no one besides Cryer himself—it does not relieve anyone of the duty to pay taxes and it will not prevent anyone else from being convicted of tax evasion in the future. And the only effect on Cryer is that he stays out of jail—he must still pay his taxes, including interest and penalties for not filing. The only reason Cryer may be notable, in my opinion, is because of the amount of the discussion of this case in the tax protester community—i.e., he is notable because a significant fringe group is (incorrectly) claiming his case is notable or significant. For that reason, I think it would be a good idea to have a brief mention of him in the Tax protester history article—as a way of correcting mistaken beliefs about his or his case's importance. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 22:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• keep There are many secondary sources, but these are not currently in the article because it is a work in progress. Millions of Americans pay income taxes, and it is useful information to them to know why Tom Cryer has openly not filed a tax return or paid income taxes since 1993. It is unjust to differently tax individuals who are similarly situated merely because some understand the law and judiciary better than others. Wikipedia exists to eliminate information disparities. Mpublius 17:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge - Mateo SA's comment above seems a smart solution. Llajwa 15:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• weak keep I think this individual is notable in regard to tax protesting. I'm familiar with him and I barely keep up with this stuff. It has attracted enough editors to create dispute, which seems to be a sign of notability. Morphh ^(talk) 13:45, 08 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions.
• Keep I don't understand nom's point about primary and secondary sources; don't we usually prefer secondary to primary sources?--Bedivere 21:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - the point, and I apologize if it was ambiguous, is that there are plenty of primary sources (Cryer's website, legal documents relating to Cryer, Cryer's Youtube videos, etc) but scarce few secondary sources. Yes, we do prefer secondary sources, which is rather the whole gist of my nomination. Into The Fray ^T/C 21:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep there are secondary sources and the court documents certainly count as sources, they are not earth shattering for notability so I can see that maybe a merge into a broader argument could be a solution. One of the frustrations with working on this article has been a lack of secondary news coverage. Still I thin kit squeaks by on notability. Tmtoulouse 23:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete No indications of professionnal sports player by that name--JForget 23:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barry Mead

Barry Mead (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Possible hoax WikiGull 21:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Looks hoaxy to me. Delete. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment No record in either my definitive Torquay United book or my book on all professional footballers since 1945, but in the depths of my memory this might be a player that changed his name, though even then he would have a page under the other name.WikiGull 22:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete can't find him on Neil Brown's site of players either (specifically [17] and [18]). Unless someone can scratch up a source he's completely unverifiable. Nanonic 00:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes, completely unverifiable. If someone does come up with a source then it can of course be restored but at present, no. --Malcolmxl5 01:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no record on allfootballers.com either, so if this guy does exist and was on the books of those clubs then he never made it to the first team and therefore fails WP:BIO. The reference to his family suggests the article may have been created by one of his (grand?)-children ChrisTheDude 07:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per research of Nanonic and ChrisTheDude. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as NN, per above discussion. N.B.: The creator of the article is an IP address, which is no longer possible. Bearian'sBooties 20:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] People of Mixed Italian/African descent but not from Italy

People of Mixed Italian/African descent but not from Italy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

is there any reason to have lists like this other just to make a list about something. I can't imagine how this could be use full for anything. Ridernyc 21:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have create this article in order to split from the article "african italians" ( persons that live in Italy and are italian, with an african background ) from person that live outside Italy with a mixed italian and african background. An author as suggest that but didn't perform the split.User:Lucifero4

• Delete Not is it only listcruft, but is also written poorly. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. listcruft. Operating 22:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Notwithstanding the awkward title, it's unsourced. Franco Harris, I'm familiar with... son of a black U.S. soldier and an Italian mom, but what's the Afritalian connection with the others? Mandsford 23:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Silly. —Ian Spackman 19:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PeaceNT 12:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marci Bowers

Marci Bowers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable individual, no outside/unrelated sources Avruch 20:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I agree, delete per WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:RS. STORMTRACKER 94 21:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There are no substantial sources to establish notability. She took over the practice of a noted physician in the sex reassignment field, but notability is not inherited.--Sethacus 21:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless external sources are brought into verification of notability. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 17:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. improvement. Nomination withdrawn. PeaceNT 12:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heroic art

Heroic art (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article Heroic art asserts that this was the Third Reich's term for their official/preferred art, a claim that is baseless as far as I can tell. The locution "heroic art", which appears in art criticism from time to time, means different things to different people, much like "sentimental art" or "underrated art" or "confusing art", which also don't rate Wikipedia articles. Ewulp 20:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 20:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Move any verifiable material to something like Nazi art, Art of the Third Reich, or fascist art. Bacchiad 12:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment A move to Art of the Third Reich would solve this nicely. I shouldn't have tagged it AfD...there needs to be an article on this subject, just not named "Heroic Art". Ewulp 05:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Done, although the search term "Heroic Art" with the subsidary search term Nazi does return the following [19] at Google Scholar. I can understand why User ewulp would wish this article to use a more specific name rather than a general one, and the move has now been done (its done by the move button next to the history button). It actually didn't need an Afd to do this. If Ewulp is happy with this renaming and that concerns with the veracity of the article can be dealt with (either by citing or rewriting) than this Afd can be closed by user Ewulp withrawing the nomination.KTo288 10:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Nomination withdrawn Shoulda just moved it in the first place, was asleep at the keyboard. Article will now be fixed! Thanks to all. Ewulp 11:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 02:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Captain Richard Avery Hornsby

Captain Richard Avery Hornsby (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a hoax. Originally created on 19th September it was speedily deleted as the author had blanked the page. He has since recreated it but it reads like a story. The source given for the burial records shows not record of a burial of a person of this name so should be discounted. The second source is merely testifies that a song may (or may not) exist. A Google Search produces a big fat zero, apart from the Wikipedia article [20]. B1atv 20:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Not sure yet. I found a Richard Hornsby at the burial cite given, but couldn't verify the ballad- there are a lot of ballads on that source. It's possible that this is real history, and just needs a serious rewrite. It would help if the creator could scan the relevant page of her source; I don't think my public library has a copy and it doesn't seem to be available online, as far as my googling could turn up. I'm hesitant to say 'delete' until the creator has a chance to respond with a reliable source or two. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Best I could find is [21], and a cursory examination does confirm a few details, such as the time and location. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:HOAX. STORMTRACKER 94 20:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I think this AFD is premature. The article in its current state has a lot of issues, but I don't think that it is a hoax. There does appear to be the possibility of finding reliable sources, but given that the type of sources may not be available on the Internet, the article should kept to give more time to acquire sources. -- Whpq 20:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the link provided by Yngvarr. Several keywords in this article appear in the book. Not sure of his notability, yet. If kept, it needs a rewrite.--Sethacus 21:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above two posts, this is way premature, mere hunches are not enough to delete at this stage...some evidence exists, clean up more appropriateJJJ999 02:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• This is not a HOAX article, as B1atv and STORMTRACKER claim. Google has been the death of REAL research. Just because something doesn't come up on Google, it doesn't mean it isn't true. Seahamlass 12:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment to above The policy on burden of evidence places responsibility on the editor to cite reliable sources. There does seem to be sources, but the proof you provided are a graveyard and a ballad. With regards to the google dig, I'm actually likely to agree with you, that google has been used to inappropriately give weight for arguments for deletion (not just this one, either). Given the antiquity of the subject, it may be difficult to provide online results; but in the same manner, given that any subject material likely pre-dates any copyright laws, you might be able to get these texts online in some manner (I don't know if wikibooks would be the place) which may also provide enough supporting evidence for the subject. Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This is interesting and quite fun to read. A lot less dry than some of the more edited Wiki entries! (And I've heard about this man, too, as we learned about him in school for A Level history way back in the 1980s!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.188.174.63 (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• keep only if an actual source can be cited - Djgranados 22:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The article is backed by three sources, including a scan of a book featuring Captain Hornsby. He has also been written about in another history book too, making him a notable person and therefore worthy of a Wiki page.79.66.137.81 23:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The moderator who originally nominated this for deletion, B1atv, has admitted on his own talk page that he 'may have made a mistake' by making the nomination. I will quote the full phrase, and it is up there on his talk page for all to see: "I may have made a mistake with nominating the Captain Richard Avery Hornsby article for deletion under the Articles for Deletion process." B1atv 07:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Seahamlass 16:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seahamlass (talk • contribs)

Yes, that was gracious of him, wasn't it? I've put articles up for AfD that ended up being kept, too- that's why we discuss with the community instead of just deleting things; so we can try to avoid mistakes. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC}

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was All delete--JForget 23:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That's Incentive

That's Incentive (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Prod was removed, but no reliable sources were added to show how this band meets WP:MUSIC.

AfD should also include related articles:

• The Christmas Album
• Projections
• Triskaidekaphobia (album)
  
• Go Fly A Kite
  

-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The only external source I can find is a myspace page, and links to lyrics... Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC and above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormtracker94 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As Seen on above. Mystache 21:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect "That's Incentive" to You Can Play These Songs with Chords Will ^(talk) 21:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I don't see how redirecting it to that article will help, since the two are (seemingly) unrelated. Am I missing something? NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Death Cab for Cutie did write a song called "That's Incentive," which this article redirected to at one time, and which was on the album You Can Play These Songs with Chords; I'm okay with a return to the redirect for that article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per the nomination, no reliable anything. Burntsauce 22:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. No assertion of notability at all. - CobaltBlueTony 15:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy (A7) delete all and restore the redirect as mentioned above unless proof of this band meeting WP:Music is provided before the end of this AfD. A1octopus 01:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete--JForget 23:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of disasters

List of disasters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete second time around for this one - was kept after a WP:POINT nomination a year ago, but still suffers from unfixable problems. What's a disaster? According to the article: "A disaster is a natural or man-made event that negatively affects life, property, livelihood or industry, often resulting in permanent changes to human societies, ecosystems and environment. Disasters manifest as hazards exacerbating vulnerable conditions and exceeding individuals' and communities means to survive and thrive. Most of the catastrophic disasters listed in this article have occurred at a specific non-enduring time in history rather than a longer time-period (e.g. this excludes entire long-lasting wars while including specific events during wars)." So this list is a mish-mash of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV matters - an earthquake that kills 2 is a disaster - I would think it a tragedy but hardly a disaster (my POV), but no car accidents that kill 2 - the article's POV apparently - unless it's because the Big Dig in Boston is what kills you in your car then 1 death suffices to make it a disaster. Face it: accidents happen all the time that "negatively affect[] life, property, livelihood or industry" - every car crash, industrial accident, product recall, tainted food product, hazardous chemical leak, OPEC meeting, along with even relatively minor (and nn) earthquakes, storms, military engagements. We have subsidiary lists which take care of notable items of each genre; we have categories, too. But to list some things as "disasters" while ignoring others without any definable threshold, is essentially comparing apples to asteroids here. Carlossuarez46 20:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 20:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I think this is begging for POV edits amongst other things. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination, vague list title which serves little to no purpose in life. Burntsauce 22:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Carlos is right on about this list, which is redundant and not as thorough as individual lists, and, as he points out, wrong on so many levels. This one tries to find the worst disasters chronologically in a telescoped form (i.e., "Renaissance disasters" and "21st Century Disasters", and then the worst fires, plane crashes, earthquakes, etc. Ultimately, it's the Grim Reaper's notepad, with room to add new finds every day, like the December '06 earthquake that killed 2 people. Mandsford 23:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete, far too vague, listcruft, you name it. Personally, I think this list itself is a disaster -- should it then be self-referential? (Just kidding.) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All of the reasons already mentioned. Ridernyc 05:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. All of the above, plus it comes close to OR. Bacchiad 12:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I won't challenge the consensus to delete this but wonder if there isn't some content worth keeping. For instance would a List of Mining Disasters (and other narrower lists) be more manageable? I found this article today trying to get some perspective on 3200 miners trapped in Elandsrand (see wikinews article) and found the mining section of use. It seems a shame to just delete it.--KenWalker | Talk 01:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Response Yes, there is some content worth keeping, but not in this "everything but the kitchen sink accident" form. I was surprised that there's not a similar list of mining disasters (as you would find in any almanac), and the Wikipedia model fails in that regard. There is an article called Mining accident; Mining disaster redirects there, although most accidents are not disasters. And there is a Category:Mining Disasters which in turn has (I'm not kidding) 13 subcategories called "Mining disasters in _______", the premise apparently being that mining disasters in the U.S. are different than those in Papua New Guinea. This isn't much better than a bunch of subcategories called "coal mine disasters", "tin mine disasters", etc. A good article about mining disasters could be written, and it would be a lot better than the categories. I'm sure there are other parts of this particular list that might show the current shortcomings of Wikipedia. Mandsford 15:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above, although I find it highly inconsistent that we are deleting this loosely associated list of events and keeping another loosely associated list of people. My opinions on both are the same, however. RFerreira 19:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Impossible to scope. I reject RFerreira's point; there are no doubt many articles with differing opinions on whether they should be deleted and we can't expect agreement on them all.--Bedivere 21:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cuffed Together

Cuffed Together (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not every episode of every cartoon needs a page. Overcategorisation. Spamguy 19:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I agree. Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 19:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Same as above. Llajwa 15:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete cartoon cruft.--Bedivere 21:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus/keep. — Scientizzle 05:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Public forum debate

Public forum debate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

These articles appear to have been created as spin-offs of National Forensic League. They make no assertions of the notability of each individual part of the (admittedly notable) NFL competition - notability is not inherited. It is unlikely to the point of impossiblity that evidence of such notability can be found. None of these articles provide any reliable sources to verify the claims (or indeed any sources at all), making it impossible to differentiate between verifiable fact and original research. This is significant only as it is doubtful that reliable sources can be found. In the absence of an encyclopaedic coverage, most of the articles incorporate (or incorporated) lists of past winners or other unnecessary and unecyclopaedic information. I have ommitted from this nomination the only article that I believe has the potential to assert its notability (Lincoln-Douglas Debate). While I dislike block nominations as much as any, these articles really are peas in a pod. That pod is, unfortunately, not one of ours. Happy‑melon 19:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This AfD concerns the following articles:

Public Forum Debate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Foreign Extemporaneous Speaking (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Domestic Extemporaneous Speaking (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Original Oratory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Dramatic Interpretation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Humorous Interpretation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Duo Interpretation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Student Congress (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Prose Interpretation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Poetry Interpretation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Extemporaneous Commentary (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Expository Address (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Impromptu Speaking (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 20:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - These are definitly noteable! There have been mountains of literature devoted to these events. For Instance, the Rostrum, which is admittadly is published by the NFL, and is hence in some ways "self-published," has dozens of articles on Public Forum, Original Oratory and US Extemp, Duo Interp. While this may scare off some as self-published, they are written by people with no conflict interest by working for the NFL, teachers and professors who coach the events, and while some may be advice for the events, many document changes in the ways the events have changed over the years. I'll work on finding more indepedent articles soon, but for now, I have to say that I am very surprised these notable topics are up for deletion.

Although, I'm happy to see that the best event (LD) was the onoly one spared ;) Also, why did you not nominate Policy Debate? I understand it's obviously notable, but it too is assoicated with the NFL.

And though it doesn't really help my "side" I should note that many people are probably going to want to merge this with Individual events (speech).--Ybbor^Talk 21:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Okay, here are some more resources, from a first sweep through Amazon: this book devotes dozens of pages to each major event. this book is devoted entirely to documenting the procedures of Student Congress [22]. The following to Public forum: [23] [24]. To extemp: [25]. Oratory: [26]. Dramatic Interp: [27]. Humourous interp: [28]. Duo Interp: [29] [30]. Now I will start searches of periodicals. --Ybbor^Talk 21:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    • While I commend you on your search for 'sources', I must point out that not one of those sources is truly independent of the subject. As how-to guides, instruction manuals and strategy texts, they might be useful to reference the sections on format and rules that currently exist. However, see below for an explanation of why the prevalence of those sections contradicts WP:NOT. None of the books you have provided is evidence for the notability of the debate forms. A scholarly analysis of the impact of each individual form on american culture (not simply about the impact of the NFL) would be evidence for notability. I challenge you to find one. Happy‑melon 14:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep; Do Not Merge - Sigh, more tyrannical deletion binges. Tens of thousands of high school students compete in these events each year marked for deletion, up to and over 10 weekends a debate season. The fact that innumerable independent research firms have been instituted to cater to the debate events shows their notability. As for the demand to satisfy the non-original research requirement, simple citations from The Rostrum or the NFL's website can satisfy the research issue. Put simply, if these are going to be deleted on original research and notability grounds, then the limitless articles on pokemon species and characters in the Lord of the Rings that were mentioned only once must be immediately deleted. Auror 13:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Sigh, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Incidentally, if not for the fact that I would get lynched, I would also list for deletion the articles you describe, per WP:BEANS. The facts you have elucidated might be true - if they are reliably sourced, but they only demonstrate the importance of the topics. In fact, they only indicate the importance of the NFL itself. Even so, none of the facts you have put forward actually advance a claim of notability. In order to be an encylopaedic coverage of the topic (of a particular style of debating), the articles should not contain information such as detailed rules (WP:NOT#TEXT, WP:NOT#INFO), past winners (WP:NOT#INFO) or even techniques (WP:NOT#HOWTO). Remove all this and what is left? I have assumed that the Lincoln-Douglas debate is named after two famous people for some reason - the history of the form and the name assigned to it probably is notable. Hence I have excluded it from this listing. Remove all the things that wikipedia is not from the remainign articles, however, and there is nothing left. Happy‑melon 14:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep each of these are legitimate and notable forms of debate in their own right and deserve their own articles. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 07:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Prove it. :D Happy‑melon 17:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. With sources, any WP:OR could be removed from the articles, leaving only what is verifiable. I have to believe that there's a textbook or something out there that could serve as a reasonably independent source. If the level of verifiable information is low, I would support a merge to Forms of Debate or NFL Forms of Debate or some similar article. As for notability, the National Forensic League is notable primarily because of its activities in the area of student debate. Such activities consist almost entirely of the activities described in these articles. I acknowledge that notability is not inherited - but, if the NFL is notable for these activities, don't these activities retain some notability as a result? ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Textbooks are certainly available which can serve as a reliable source for sections entitled, for instance, "rules", "past winners", "judging", etc. Unfortunately, various sections of WP:NOT show that the articles cannot be constituted of, or even based around, such sections. Reliably-sourced sections entitled, for instance, "history", "cultural impact", etc, must instead form the bulk of these articles; with one exception, there is no evidence that reliable sources, or even the necessary content, is available. Remember the distinction between the cultural impact/history of the NFL (which is undisputedly notable) and the cultural impact/history of a specific debate form; a reliable source for notability must focus specifically on the latter. Happy‑melon 17:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. While the parent article National Forensic League is notable, these articles on the individual forms of debate are not. The absence of reliable sources is striking. I observe that Poetry Interpretation is on this list, but note that it was converted into a redirect to Poetry reading in February 2005. I have no objection to deleting that redirect, because the old article that is under the redirect seems to be properly considered in this batch, and the redirect doesn't even seem correct. The target article Poetry reading should of course not be deleted. EdJohnston 19:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I have removed the AfD tag from Poetry reading and placed it on the Poetry Interpretation redirect. I acknowledge that such a deletion would normally be covered at redirects for deletion, but it seems most appropriate to keep the nominations together. The main article on Poetry reading should not, of course, be deleted. Happy‑melon 20:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, made-up game, created under this title after repeated speedy deletions and salting of Chicago Ball; WP:SNOW for those being picky about the speedy categories. NawlinWiki 22:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chicag ball

Chicag ball (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notable game invented by author. We really need a speedy category for this kind of thing. Kww 19:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• I was not the inventor of the game, but this is a new game. Is there serious president for deleting entry's due purely to their notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emblemcycling (talk • contribs) 19:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, absolutely, otherwise every band, person, company, website, anything could have an article. Please take a read of our notability guidelines. J Milburn 19:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Per nom (NN). There really should be a speedy category called "DUH". - Rjd0060 19:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, only invented the day before the article was created. WP:NFT. Hut 8.5 19:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N. Also of note is that the game was just invented yesterday. STORMTRACKER 94 19:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

the game was not invented the day before the article was posted, the game was first played, the day before the article was written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emblemcycling (talk • contribs) 20:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Which is completely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that if the game was first played yesterday, it's completely and totally not notable. Delete. Smashville 21:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Gross violation of WP:NFT. Caknuck 20:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Can't A7, because it isn't about a "real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content".Kww 20:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Cryptic 04:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vijay Park

Vijay Park (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This short stub has survived a deletion discussion in April 2004 (!) and has been unexpanded ever since. It is about a residential complex within a metropolis in India, consisting of 30 buildings the talk page says. Needless to mention, no secondary sources are given. Although I haven't been here that long, I think that consensus has changed since 2004, and we can delete the article by now. --B. Wolterding 19:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:N and per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 19:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Doesn't qualify to be a stub. Also, per nom (NN). - Rjd0060 19:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Undecided: Where do I find the relevant WP policy (e.g. minimum size/age for articles about places)? Jorge Stolfi 22:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's a specific policy about places; it's WP:N that applies, so we would need substantial coverage in secondary sources. So if there are several articles in The Hindu about this place, that might be a reason to keep the article. On the other hand, common sense tells me that we cannot have articles on all (or a substantial portion of) residential comlexes of comparable size, since there must be millions of these. So unless there's something specific about this particular one, it should be removed. --B. Wolterding 14:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • Ah, the old "my opinion" == "common sense" trick. Yes people were using those in 2004 too, but fortunately for the growth of the 'pedia, such arguments didn't win. It will this time of course because "consensus can change". Shame we never really succeeded in getting beyond mob rule. The world only loses by deleting this, and Wikipedia only loses by having people spend time thinking about deleting this. Pcb21 Pete 16:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Did you notice that word #11 in my response is a link to a guideline? --B. Wolterding 17:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, but don't worry yourself. I am fighting battles that have long been lost. You'll get the article deleted, don't worry. Pcb21 Pete 07:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete all. Consensus is that the topic of each of these articles represent what Wikipedia is not and are inappropriate content forks whose information could be covered adaquately in Chord (music), Major chord, and/or Minor chord. -- Jreferee t/c 04:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] F major (chord)

F major (chord) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Anyone able to explain how this deserves an article?? Georgia guy 18:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:N. Does not deserve an article at all. STORMTRACKER 94 19:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is just an instruction on how to make this chord. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Smashville 19:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The following should probably also be included with this AfD per WP:NOT.

  • C major (chord) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

    C minor (chord) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

    C♯ major (chord) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

    C♯ minor (chord) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

    D major (chord) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

    D minor (chord) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

    D♯ major (chord) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

    D♯ minor (chord) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

    E major (chord) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

    E minor (chord) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

    F minor (chord) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

    F♯ major (chord) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

    F♯ minor (chord) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

    G major (chord) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

    G minor (chord) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

    G♯ major (chord) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

    G♯ minor (chord) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

    A major (chord) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

    A minor (chord) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

    A♯ major (chord) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

    A♯ minor (chord) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

    B major (chord) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

    B minor (chord) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

All of these pages are merely instructions as how to make the chords. There is no context as to what instrument, which leads me to believe that they could even be speedy deleted. However, this is clearly a case of WP:NOT. Smashville 19:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect them all To an article that discusses musical tones. (Don't know the name, but you get the idea).--Alasdair 19:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete & Redirect: All to Chord (music). - Rjd0060 19:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge anything not redundant to Chord (music) but no redirects. If you can write "F major (chord)", you can write "Chord". Sadly, these could have been much more than what they are... for instance, Beethoven's Opus 59 was his Quartet No. 7, a string quartet in F major, opening with this chord. Just as well to retire these before someone gets an idea to add that type of info. Mandsford 23:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep on the basis of mandford's statement that the articles could have been much more informative--I do not know why he thinks that would be an additional reason to delete. Its the subject that has to be notable, and stubs are acceptable. DGG (talk) 08:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • How do you propose an article be expanded on a chord? The article doesn't even contain the context of what instrument this is...Smashville 13:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as stubs, which actually pack a lot of contextual information into very little text. The chords are given types, intervals, and in some cases fretting. Unless someone wants to put all this into a snazzy table at chord (music), I don't see the objective here. --Dhartung | Talk 09:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Explaining what notes form a chord is not a how-to guide. As Mandsford suggests, they could easily be expanded to give significant uses of the chord in musical compositions. Espresso Addict 10:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  Friends, I have a feeling that these articles will be no different 6 months from now. The person who wrote the F-major article wasn't thinking about "Quartet No. 7 in F-major", but was doing a "how to" (ya play F, A and the higher C together). Nor do I think that any of us have the time or musical knowledge to make these work. Not long ago, I had an interesting exchange with one editor who was shouting "If this can be sourced, please do it now." My answer was, "not now, I'm eating lunch". As I say, I don't think these are going to change, but if there's a movement in that direction, I would be in a chord with lobbying to keep. Mandsford 12:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  I tend to think in the long term -- if this project really intends to build the most comprehensive encyclopedia in human history then six months of stubbiness isn't such a problem. Espresso Addict 14:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  Yeah, but it isn't an expandable stub. That's the problem. There is absolutely nothing in these articles that can be expanded upon. They're not articles about notes, they are articles about chords. It's a fancy name for a "If you put a finger on this key and a finger on that key...it makes this sound..." There is nothing that can be expanded. Smashville 14:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree with Smashville. These may be stubs but stubs have guidelines too, and these have no chance for expansion. - Rjd0060 14:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• I would delete these. The chord is not distinct form the key, as a subject for an encyclopaedia, and we already have articles on the keys. What can be said about the chord for C major that can't be covered in a very short paragraph in C major? There would be no problem splitting them out iof the sections on the chords in the key articles got long, but these are not long, they are very short indeed. Cruftbane 11:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Major chord and minor chord, based on chord type. The (snazzy) tables on those pages include the spellings in the article. I agree it is unlikely anything else would be added, per Mandsford. The chords based on individual notes share far too much in common to make them distinct pages (as opposed to chord _types_, like major or minor). Rigadoun (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Major chord and minor chord, per Rigadoun. -- rynne 15:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. It's an integral part of music, even though the individual articles are sort of inane, it'd be quite useful if either merged into a single page or even put into a segment of the major/minor chord pages. You wouldn't very well remove pages on the parts of automobiles, would you? PolarisSLBM 16:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Are specific chords really integral? An article on chords in general, yes, but that's like having an article on each different guitar fret. Smashville 19:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - Notable information, of the kind which encyclopedias have included since the 18th century, but it's just silly to have each chord in its own page. Llajwa 15:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article Chord (music) does the job, articles for each chord are redundant. Brianlucas 23:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all for now. We're acting like users are incapable of searching at all. SolidPlaid 03:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep--JForget 22:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Chiu

Alex Chiu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

If the unsourced, outrageous claims are ignored, I don't think he'd be notable. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I agree with Adam Cuerden. STORMTRACKER 94 19:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Feature articles in the San Francisco Weekly, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Georgetown University's paper and the New Zealand Herald, plus passing mentions in the New York Times and Stanford University Daily. He may be a crackpot, but he's a notable one.--Sethacus 21:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Sethacus, famous figure within the San Francisco community. Burntsauce 22:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is an interesting case: the article seems a bit of an even split between non-notable unsourced puffery and non-notable unsourced attackery. The claims of "notability"--comparisons to Edison and Einstein--are absurd. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (ugh). A charlatan, but notable enough for James Randi to take notice of. Clarityfiend 01:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. In the realm of wackos, he's a star... one of the first really famous web crackpots. Pinball22 01:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Pinball's right... Alex Chiu is a known whackjob... probably one of the first web whackos. Definitely notable  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Chiu meets WP:BIO, even if a few of his gadgets are currently unsourced. --McGeddon 07:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, unfortunately. Notable internet crank, but the article does need more sources. We have sourced articles on the batshittiness of Gene Ray, Sollog, Barbara Schwartz, and others. Skinwalker 17:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, unfortunately. Notoriety is a form of notability, and we have all kinds of quacks, scammers, criminals (K. Trudeau), etc. represented here. It needs better sourcing and needs to be cut down to about three paragraphs to keep it from being another advertisement for his scams. -- Fyslee / talk 06:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, and I see nothing "unfortunate" about the retention of this article and find many of the comments above to be borderline personal attacks. On second thought, there is nothing borderline about them at all. How very disappointing of us. RFerreira 19:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of Social Networks

Comparison of Social Networks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Page looks spammy; a lot of the 'social networks' included do not have articles and the article provides information of little importance to an encyclopaedia. J Di 18:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - all the information comes from a single source (see link) that displays the information in a table similar to this article, so there's a potential WP:COPYVIO. If not a direct copyvio, this would then certainly be original research. SkerHawx 18:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:COPYVIO, WP:OR, and WP:SPAM. STORMTRACKER 94 19:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - precedent for this type of list set by the deletion of ‎List of Digital Asset Management systems (Archived debate). It was generally expected that each entry must have a Wikipedia article to qualify for inclusion, similar to List of social networking websites. Because the List of DAM was an indiscriminate repository of external links (a linkfarm), and violated WP:NOT, it was deleted. I strongly feel that the same applies to this comparator list, as they are all externals. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Question While we are on the subject... so you guys would be in favor of removing redlinks from this article too? -- Ben 21:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Yes, I think the same would apply. The article even states that the list is not necessarily complete nor up to date, and the precedent found by Ref would seem to point to its deletion as well. Just an opinion though, with no prejudice if the article or table in question actually went through a real afD. SkerHawx 01:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - the basic watchword is always notability. Are each of the links listed in Web desktop truly notable? It's not enough for the List as an article itself to be notable (which is extremely doubtful if its constituent parts are not). Each component of each List should itself be notable. That's easily proven by insisting that each listed item has a standalone WP article (therefore indicating that it is notable in Wikipedia). For this reason, redlinks should always be removed, as we are trying to list items which are notable through bluelinks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Question First of all, the content on that website is under the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ I did not know that linking to products that don't have a page on wikipedia is wrong (my bad) but I'll try to correct that asap LucianaPavel 23:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Correction - not wrong, but still leaving oneself open to charges of linkspamming, and endangering the future of the list as a notable entity. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There are hundreds if not thousands of social networking sites with new one appearing every day. This list will very quickly get out of control and be useless. Imagine that chart with 1000 entries.Ridernyc 05:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - This article is just begging to be a frequent problem spot, and is unencyclopedic. Too many people like to argue about this, and I can't see any reason why this information belongs in an encyclopedia. Phasmatisnox 02:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 02:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VANK

VANK (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This page cites no external sources, is written with an obvious and clear bias that is difficult to correct, and is additionally written in poor English. Per WP:N, non-commercial organizations need at least one and preferably multiple unrelated sources. This article appears to have none. Avruch 15:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Willing to withdraw nom if delete voters agree, per CaliforniaAliBabaAvruch 00:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 19:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't find a source for this that isn't the organization itself; therefore, doesn't meet WP:Verifiable. As per the nomination, there is an obvious and clear bias -- verging on infringement of WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Accounting4Taste 20:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I have restarted the article based on easily-found sources (try a google news archive search) and removed the unsourced soapboxing. There does exist sourced criticism of this group, which I have added into the article. More sources [31][32] cab 00:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Nice save CalAliBaba. Bad sourcing and POV are reasons for editing, not deleting an article. Rampantly deleting articles that are poorly written by hapless foreign types only contributes to the institutional bias of wikipedia. Bacchiad 13:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, dumpster diving at AfD is one of my favourite activities around here. But unfortunately, I don't really think this article contributes much to fighting Wikipedia's systemic bias. Our Asia-related articles tend to consist largely of stuff that's important to foreign Anglophones in Asia or immigrants' children who grew up in Anglophone countries, not of stuff which has actual local historical or political importance. Hence we get articles about idiot groups like this, and in the mean time, we have almost no coverage of the members of the National Assembly of Korea (compare Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives). cab 00:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Seems notable on the basis of quoted refs.--Bedivere 21:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Five Magazine

Five Magazine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An undergraduate publication that currently does not establish notability. It might be notable, but of it is then it needs to be shown in the article. Wizardman 17:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:N and nom. STORMTRACKER 94 19:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable and the current magazine website is defunct so not sure this magazine even exists. MarsRover 03:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:N, and is nothing more than a stub that's going nowhere. Phasmatisnox 02:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete You'd need jolly good evidence that any publication of this type is notable.--Bedivere 21:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Cryptic 04:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lauri Liiv

Lauri Liiv (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a singer who placed in the country preliminaries for Eurovision. While being in the Eurovision Song Contest establishes notability, I don't believe this is the case for preliminary events. Wizardman 17:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. STORMTRACKER 94 19:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. On the face of the article, yes, delete for not meeting WP:Notable, but a Google search reveals numerous hits that I cannot understand, not being fluent in ... is it Estonian? They might be blogs or national news coverage for all I know. I wonder if we can attract a speaker of Estonian to comment on this AfD. Accounting4Taste 20:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:N. perhaps notable in the Estonian WP? --Sc straker 17:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ash Lieb

Ash Lieb (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No apparent notability: fails WP:BIO. No independent third-party sources. Web presence is all self-published. Freshacconci | Talk 16:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —Freshacconci | Talk 17:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Ethicoaestheticist 17:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This person is talented but not notable. - Modernist 18:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This person is not notable and the page's images are all possibly violations of WP:IMAGE. STORMTRACKER 94 19:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Interesting work, but no third-party sources -- Wikipedia, MySpace and blogs, none conferring notability. And as per 94 I have concerns about violations of WP:IMAGE. Accounting4Taste 20:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Modernist.--Bedivere 21:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Euryalus 07:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Oxford Trio

The Oxford Trio (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Possible hoax or non notable band OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 16:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Might even be a CSD. --Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 16:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Having checked a search engine, "The Oxford Trio" is likely to a be a real on campus band in Oxford University. However, this particular article makes many wild claims (nothing related to the band IRL), such as "The disbanded after Heffy Rock become severely addicted to Crack-Cocaine, a chemical which his mothers tear ducts produced naturally." This article is very likely to be entirely made up, and an attack on the names mentioned.--Alasdair 19:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete (G12) as if not a hoax, is certainly a blatant advert. A1octopus 01:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete--JForget 23:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lock Up Your Daughters tour

Lock Up Your Daughters tour (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete. NN Endless Dan 16:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Even if this band was notable, which it isn't, this little tour would not be.--Michig 17:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC. STORMTRACKER 94 19:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Seven shows by a bar band. --Bongwarrior 08:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a notable event. -Jmh123 22:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable, nobody is ever going to look for this information, it's useless. Phasmatisnox 02:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete--JForget 23:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time (band)

Time (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

1. Delete. NN; WP:BAND Endless Dan 16:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No notability.--Michig 17:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails the notability requirements in WP:MUSIC. Useight 18:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BAND and WP:RS. STORMTRACKER 94 19:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete time. Burntsauce 22:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• No sources offering evidence of notability, and Google searches such as this turn up precious little. Delete. --Paul Erik 04:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Unsigned, no records released, no assertion of notability, totally fails WP:MUSIC. --Bongwarrior 07:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. —Paul Erik 18:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, as the subject fails WP:BAND and has no reliable third party sources to go by. RFerreira 19:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable, and clearly added by either the band or a rabid fan. Spam. Phasmatisnox 02:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - consensus appears that they are NN. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pugs and Kelly

Pugs and Kelly (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local midday radio talk show. Cap'n Walker 16:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:N. STORMTRACKER 94 19:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N. Llajwa 15:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N. Phasmatisnox 02:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Cap'n Walker going after more Dallas radio host articles. It's so funny when you say "local." You try and make it sound like this is Dallas, population 15,000. There are 6.5 million potential listeners in the DFW metroplex; the fifth largest market in the United States. I fail to see the notability issue. Here's a Dallas Morning News article for you (link). ♫ Bitch and Complain Sooner ♫ 17:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

  Comment. One article in a local newspaper from two years ago? "Potential listeners"? Meh. Also Mr. Bitch and Complain, please comment on content and leave me out of your rants. Cap'n Walker 03:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

  Comment. Sorry, but you apparently have something against Dallas radio hosts as you continue to apply your brand of "If I haven't heard of it, it must not be notable," rationale. Just because a specific subject can't be found wide-spread in Internet links certainly does not mean it's not notable. As if the Internet is the end all be all of notability. Expain how a radio show stays on the air for over six years in a top-five market? Right, crappy ratings and no name recognition. You got me. ♫ Bitch and Complain Sooner ♫ 04:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Espresso Addict 17:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plastic Surgery Today

Plastic Surgery Today (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Local weekend talk radio show. No reliable independent sources to establish notability. Cap'n Walker 16:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, WP:RS, and WP:N. STORMTRACKER 94 19:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Citing WP:SPAM; the program's producer buys the time from the station, so it's more of an infomercial to promote Dr. Schwartz's practice than an actual program. More often than not, if its a weekend program dealing with something never addressed on weekday talk radio, the show is sponsored by one entity and an infomercial. Nate 22:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom -- the entire article as a whole reeks of spam. And even though it's not a copyvio, I bet whoever created the article works for Dr. Schwartz, which, if true, could also be a WP:COI violation (checking the history, the editor's only edits were for this article -- back in 2006). -- azumanga 02:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as hoax, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Max Woythaler

Sir Max Woythaler (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and unsourced; suspected hoax Man vyi 16:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete hoax Yngvarr (t) (c) 16:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: article was created alongside another called Sir Erik von Eisenach IV that has text such as "Coming back home in 2004 with a kill count of over 1500 frosting covered donuts, he was received by the queen of England who knighted him and slept with him in the same day." This is ego cruft created by students at Schule Schloss Salem who linked the new articles from the "alumni" section. --Stéphane Charette 16:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete all. Consensus is that the topics each fail to meet general notability guidelines. -- Jreferee t/c 04:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qara (Neverwinter Nights 2)

Qara (Neverwinter Nights 2) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Also nominating:

Sand (Neverwinter Nights 2) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

These characters are non-notable outside of Neverwinter Nights 2, and read something like a game guide. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 15:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:N and noms. STORMTRACKER 94 19:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment — It's remarkable to me that these game characters can be written in more detail than many real bios. I'd suggest a merge, but it looks like List of Neverwinter Nights characters already has it covered in sufficient detail. — RJH (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both, don't merge. Fee Fi Foe Fum 03:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect - Just point them both the the above mentioned list. Phasmatisnox 02:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both, titles are too long for redirects, articles are unsourced. SolidPlaid 02:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by me. J Milburn 19:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brothers of Beer

Brothers of Beer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article doesn't assert or demonstrate the group's notability. It doesn't appear to match the criteria in either WP:ORG or WP:BIO. There are mentions on the internet, but mostly on non-reliable sources such YouTube and MySpace. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 15:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete under CSD A7, non notable group. All I really needed to read was the first line. It's a group of friends that created their own vanity page. They do not even come close to meeting the minimum notability requirements. --Cyrus Andiron 18:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per CSD 7 and per WP:N. STORMTRACKER 94 19:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J-stan (talk • contribs)

[edit] Mark Twain Intermediate School 239

Mark Twain Intermediate School 239 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP:OUTCOMES#Education states that middle schools that do not assert notability are getting deleted. The only apparent claim to notability is that it is for the "gifted". Note also that many students of the school seem to be actively editing the page, so we could have a conflict of interest here. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 15:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Aarktica 12:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zonal Employee Discount

Zonal Employee Discount (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:V and WP:N, can't find multiple, non-trivial sources to give this topic notability in an encyclopaedic context. Would also likely be against WP:NOT#TRAVEL. Russavia 14:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This seems to be notable, and verifiable sources are probably available in industry journals. Improve, don't delete. Llajwa 15:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Seems over-hasty to delete.--Bedivere 21:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Interline discounts & redirect. I thought this seem'd familiar. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Google books, Google scholar, Google patent have a few hits. The topic also is known as ZED-fare, which may be why reliable sources are not being located. Google general search has some hits as well. -- Jreferee t/c 04:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. GRBerry 17:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In-situ marketing

In-situ marketing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

orphaned article started by an editor with a CoI, who has started inserting spam links into other articles. I'm no expert on markrting but I see nothing remarkable about this Dr. Augustine Fou's theories. Ridernyc 14:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Acfou 14:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Augustine Fou these are topics for discussion and contribution by others. Is there a different place or site where I should be starting these? the initial article which is linked, gives examples (so they are not reproduced here)

Can you suggest how to edit this topic?

• Delete as violating WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:AUTO, and WP:COI (see above). Bearian'sBooties 20:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lucas Wynne

Lucas Wynne (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notability appears limited to YouTube and MySpace. No reliable and independent sources have written about this musician, who appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Dhartung | Talk 13:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Sc straker 16:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the above -- I found no reliable independent sources, no album, no recording contract, notability is not asserted -- just that his "idle" is Garth Brooks and that he knows the lyrics to more than 30 songs. Hell, I know the lyrics to more than 30 songs. Accounting4Taste 20:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:BAND. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 21:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wynne is considered a "major independent" artist. Which is Nashville-slang for "will be signed to a label any day now". Carries a rather large fan base, is immensley popular among country fans, has a strong following in the Heartland, and has been featured in multiple forms of media. (Online Radio Stations, Websites, Articles, Newspapers, Magazines, TV) He's actually released a CD to limited fans only and another form of that CD to executives. - countryfan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.107.232.233 (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It would be great if you could provide citations for those "online radio stations, websites, articles, newspapers, magazines, TV" features in order to document this person's notability. All I could find is MySpace, his fan club and blogs. The "websites" and other sources, of course, must be impartial third-party credible sources, not a MySpace friends list. Accounting4Taste 23:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC at present. I don't see indications of release on notable labels, reviews, touring or anything that would convey notability at this point. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added cited resources for his business ventures including a direct link to the ABA. - countryfan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.107.232.233 (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Cryptic 05:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deep Thought Games, LLC

Deep Thought Games, LLC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No verifiable sources give any indication that this company is notable --Pak21 13:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This is basically an advert for their games. There is no reason why this company is notable M♠ssing Ace 13:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Sc straker 16:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-admitted "low-volume publisher". Clarityfiend 01:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• There is a longer related debate on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games#Deep Thought Games, LLC about 18xx game articles in general. I want to state here that I don't have a particular objection to deleting this page -- there was no intention of advertising (we can't build orders as fast we get them so we certainly don't need more) but only providing more complete information about 18xx games, and I tried to provide information about all the publishers of all the games. The more general question is about the notability of individual games in the series, and what type of publication constitutes a reliable source for a niche area. In particular, I am confused as to why Counter Magazine is not considered a reliable source while Sumo Magazine was, when they share the same editor (Stuart Dagger) and many of the same frequent contributors. Obviously, none of these niche publications have the reach of something like Games, but they seem to be very similar and meet the criteria of a reliable source. JTamplin 02:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep From the referenced discussion, at least one person has agreed that Counter Magazine is a reliable source. This invalidates the verifiable argument above and argues for notability. JTamplin 15:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: User:JTamplin is the founder of Deep Thought Games. --Pak21 15:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Was there any doubt, as it is listed in the first line of the article as well as on my user page? If I was trying to hide it I must be really bad at it -- I also wrote the bulk of the 18xx articles you merged. Or are you suggesting that I should not participate in the discussion? Would you care to comment on the verifiability criteria? JTamplin 01:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cartman (band)

Cartman (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete. NN, fails WP:Music, only 1 user seems to be editing this page. Endless Dan 13:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, may be vanity, probably Non-notable.Kfc1864 talk _{my edits} 13:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this tends towards notability, checking for more sources. Doent appear to be a vanity or COI article, because only one ed has done the bulk of the contribution eds name doesnt appear to represent any of the band members. Gnangarra 14:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

further The Australian 26 Jan 2002 SPIN DOCTOR by Ian Sheddan partial mention good detail includes comparison to Eskimo Joe ...Cartman are rooted firmly in the modern basket, but don't yet have the finesse of an Eskimo Joe... another article The West Australian 1 July 1999 secondary coverage not sufficient to establish notability but supportive of information already in the article. Gnangarra 14:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

more Herald Sun 28 Feb 2002 By Mark Rasmussen. CD Reviews Following their previous two acclaimed EPs, Cartman dish out some very strong and solid performances on their debut long-player Go. Gnangarra 14:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - suspect too much guess work in the nomination - check - [33] - please research adequately before putting up these sort of noms - cheers SatuSuro 15:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think this is a notable Australian indie music group and there seems to be more reliable sources out there, they're just hard to sort out because of the common name. I searched Factiva and the Australian/New Zealand Reference Centre and have found articles which mention them and their performances in very reliable sources like the Herald Sun, the Sydney Morning Herald, and the West Australian. Albeit, most were brief mentions of various performances, but there were non-trivial articles, such as the Herald Sun review of their album, as noted above by Gnangarra. If the strongest case for deletion is it "may" be a vanity article (COI being a guideline) and are "probably" not notable (notability also being a guideline), I prefer to err on the side of keeping. That the article has only one primary author does not strike me as a compelling reason to delete either; if it is now a reason for deletion, we have an awful lot of bios on major award winning Australian entertainers, sportspeople, businesspeople, politicians and other articles to start deleting (I know this because I've written plenty of such articles on my own and know of others who have done likewise). The most compelling test for me is the ability to source information in an article with verifiable and reliable sources and that would seem to be possible with this article with various editors finding more sources which we can now use to start sourcing it properly. Sarah 17:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, article states that they've apparently been added by a major Australian radio network and that they've won several awards in their category, which might be just enough to pass WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the band meets a number of the notability criteria in that:

1. the band has been subject of multiple non-trivial independent published works - as cited in some of the preceding comments.
2. the band has toured nationally around Australia.
3. has been nominated and won several awards/music competitions.
4. has had a song used in a national television show.
5. has had songs placed in ration nationally by a major radio network.

As such I believe the band satisfies the notability criteria and should be retained.
For the record I have no connection with the band or any of the band members. Dan arndt 01:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep notable enough band (I'd agree there are concerns, but this one just passes them - the use on national TV show Big Brother and Net50 coverage would be sufficient, Net50 would place it alongside both Australian and overseas alternative bands of the profile of Muse, Jet etc, while Big Brother would expose it to an audience well removed from its original scene. I'd further advise the nominator that one primary author is not a deletion criterion - most of my articles on obscure topics would get canned if that was the case. Many of our FAs have only been contributed to by more than one person once the peer review and evaluation components begin. Orderinchaos 02:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cosma Shalizi

Cosma Shalizi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Doesn't meet WP:BIO. While the subject has authored an algorithm and been mentioned by Nature in the context of blogging, he does not have the necessary in-depth or multiple third party reliable sources to write a proper biography. The algorithm itself may or may not be notable, but in any case does not have an article yet. I have no doubt that the subject may achieve notability, but typically assistant professors are below the notability threshhold. IPSOS (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 15:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. It's not so much an opinion on the article itself, but I'm unhappy with the rationale, specifically the part about "does not have the necessary in-depth or multiple third-party reliable sources to write a proper biography". The proper course of action in that case is to leave the article as a stub, rather than deleting it — to my mind in this sort of AfD the primary role of the third-party sourcing requirement is to attest to notability, not to provide biographical detail (note also that we are allowed to use primary sources for factual information about the biography once notability is established). So I'd prefer to focus the debate less on the lack of published biographies and more on the question of whether the "50 best science bloggers" listing (a sign of notability, but maybe not a significant one?) or other accomplishments is enough to overcome his junior status as an academician. —David Eppstein 16:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Tentative Keep. An assistant professor, with PhD in 2001, and around 15 peer-reviewed publications doesn't sound like WP:PROF material, but a couple of his papers appear fairly highly cited in Google Scholar [34] (66 for what looks like his thesis & 72 for co-authored paper with his PhD supervisor [35]), which makes me suspect his algorithm might be noteworthy despite there being no article on it. The Nature '50 best science bloggers' of 2006 might also be almost enough for notability as an author. Not my field, so willing to change my mind if other evidence brought. Espresso Addict 18:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks notable to me. Bacchiad 13:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I accept the Nature best Science bloggers list as notability--the top 50 among the thousands. But can someone find a link for it that works? 09:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Not wildly notable, but probably tops the hurdle.--Bedivere 21:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. However, I find it very strange that the scandal that supposedly makes this building notable is not mentioned in the article. This should be nominated again in the future if a clear, sourced assertion of notability is not added. Chick Bowen 02:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metropolitan Courthouse

Metropolitan Courthouse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Another non notable highrise building in Albuquerque. Nothing remarkable or notable about it. Fram 12:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Apparently 53m high. since when did we have articles about them?Kfc1864 talk _{my edits} 13:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. 1. Largest and busiest court in the state [36] (significant gov't institution). 2. Focus of significant corruption scandal [37] (pdf) [38] [39] and 3. Prosecution of that scandal spilled over into the U.S. Attorney firings controversy.[40]. • Gene93k 14:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  Comment to above Your points 2 and 3 would be addressed by WP:NOTINHERITED. The scandal is notable, the building associated with the scandal is not. Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The article doesn't mention the scandal and even if it did, the building isn't exactly tainted. Would the motel in Maine, where Mohammed Atta spent the night of 9/10, merit its own article? Mandsford 15:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• If there are multiple reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage to it, that would be a yes. --Oakshade 03:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - This courthouse appears to have been the subject of great media attention by reliable sources due to its cost [41] and scandal [42] [43]. --Oakshade 03:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable, any arguments for notability mentioned here are absent in the article. I don't think it is notable with those arguments, either. Phasmatisnox 02:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No doubt locally notable in Albuquerque, but is that enough?--Bedivere 21:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable per Oakshade and [44] --W.marsh 13:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I visit my mother near ABQ at least annually. Big, notable building, and likely to become more so. Bearian 00:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC) Needs better sourcing, of course. Bearian 00:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete —David Eppstein 17:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wells Fargo Bank Building

Wells Fargo Bank Building (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable building. Not the highest, first, most influential, controversial, ... in fact, a rather non notable building of 53 metres high. Fram 12:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, weakly, unless further information is provided to establish minimum notability, or at least press coverage. Following the external link, I saw a white building in the 1970's rectangular style. (The ruins of our civilization will not give future archaeologists much to work with.) Unless the building had a "name" architect or is otherwise, for want of a better word, interesting, I'm not sure it's notable enough to pass. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I find nothing to assert notability for this particular building. It's apparently lit up in green at night, but that's not enough. Acroterion _(talk) 14:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It's the Battle of Albuquerque, Brendan vs. Fram!! One writes articles about Albuquerque buildings, one nominates them for deletion. Isn't there anything else to do there? Mandsford 15:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - This suggests that there may be more going on here than meets the eye. Some of the articles on Albuquerque buildings, like the Compass Bank Building (Albuquerque), are modestly interesting; apparently Microsoft was headquartered there for a time during the 1970s, back when we carved our own microchips out of wood, with stone tools. There's a template for Albuquerque buildings. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. There probably IS a notable Wells Fargo bank building in the United States, somewhere. This isn't it. Burntsauce 22:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The Wells Fargo Bank Plaza in Houston is 12th tallest in the US and 2nd in Texas. Redirecting this page there might be an option, but it might also be confusing since the name is wrong. I am undecided, but agree that a normal office building like this with no remarkable history or specifications does not merit coverage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete —David Eppstein 17:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anasazi Downtown

Anasazi Downtown (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable building. Not extremely high (41 m), not even for where its located: not historical, not architecturally remarkable, not otherwise noted. Not every skyscraper (if one can call a 40 meter building a skyscraper) needs an article. Fram 12:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete this article is a resurrected PROD fail. Still not notable. Totnesmartin 14:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete We deleted this once, and that was when its claim to fame was being the tallest building on Central Avenue.

SAT sample question: Godzilla is to Tokyo as ______ is to Albuquerque

(a) Fram (b) Brendan Miller (c) Both (d) Neither (e) I don't know, but WP:FIVE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 15:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Of at best local notability.--Bedivere 21:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no credible assertion of notability. I especially like the "reference" of "1. Thehottestfuckingbeatmakerunderthesun". NawlinWiki 15:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Winkenwerder

John Winkenwerder (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources. No evidence that he is notable per WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. 33 ghits for "John Winkenwerder"...most of which appear to be for a managing partner of a North Carolina hotel. Prod removed by author without comment. Onorem♠Dil 12:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note "John Wink" producer does return a few more ghits which appear to be related to this person. There still doesn't appear to be many reliable sources that verify any type of notability. --Onorem♠Dil 12:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I see only one other mention of "John Wink" besides the soundclick site. I see John "Wink" Willox', and mentions of other people whose last names are actually "Wink", but nothing further about this guy. ++Arx Fortis 14:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete —David Eppstein 17:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Montessori in Redlands

Montessori in Redlands (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I would say redirect to Montessori method, but it's an unlikely typo. Rocket000 11:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Using the montessori method as a pedagogy does not make a school notable--Victor falk 11:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As non-notable - there are thousand of Montessori schools, and this one doesn't deserve a redirect. Acroterion _(talk) 14:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It supposedly shares a campus with a high school, but as far as I can tell that school lacks an article, so there is no reason to redirect to the high school's article and no opportunity to merge. GRBerry 17:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Munging

Munging (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Slang word definition. Transwiki not needed. (Kinda popular slang word, so I didn't speedy this). [Caution: describes a very sick activity] Rocket000 11:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It can't be that bad I thought. I was wrong. That's vile. Nick mallory 11:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete to quote from the article (leaving the worst bits out) until the corpse has no more tasty goodness. Surely the tasty goodness thing means this is a hoax? I can't see Wikipedia needs a dictionary defenition even if it's true. M♠ssing Ace 13:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mung as the non-hoax use of this term (suspect this article's about an urban legend). Thomjakobsen 14:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No references, no Ghits in the necrophiliac line, just references to email munging. Delete as hoax (speedy would be nice). Acroterion _(talk) 14:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I did find [45] and [46], which refer to this specifically, but both are blogs. The second citation seems to have some rigour (sorry) but there's just not enough to verify this as anything except perhaps a limited hoax-like neologism. Accounting4Taste 20:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - I doubt anyone has ever done this. Sounds like unsubstantiated schoolyard banter that got blown out of proportion just because it's so incredibly sick. Phasmatisnox 02:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Cryptic 05:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leigh-Ann Galloway

Leigh-Ann Galloway (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

• Non-notable Happylabel 11:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment well, I am claiming Nothing or All here, but it comes to light that most of the characters have an article.Kfc1864 talk _{my edits} 13:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: for non notability. Inthegloryofthelilies 15:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete surely non-notable.--Bedivere 21:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Godfather Part IV

Godfather Part IV (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I didn't know what else to do with this, so I'll bring it to AFD. There are vague references available, but the article as it is provides no context, and offers a look into the possible future Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional Delete. WP:MOVIE says a movie needs to begin shooting before an article is created. With the notability of the Godfather saga, it would probably be appropriate to create an article sooner. But there needs to be a reliable source that something has happened. Unless we have a source that says there's a Director, or actors have been cast, that some real work has begun it looks like it's WP:Crystal. --Cube lurker 12:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - While a new sequel to the Godfather movies would be notable, this article cites no references WP:OR and also goes against crystalballing in speculating not only on a Godfather IV but also a V and VI. While studios may have ideas to do movies in the future, often they do not come to pass, especially sequels where the last version was panned (Godfather III). I'd suggest deleting now, and if they actually go into production with a Godfather IV the article can be recreated, hopefully with more substance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardnfast (talk • contribs) 18:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:Crystal since not enough information is available to confirm this. A1octopus 11:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Google turns up evidence that no such movie exists and that there will not be a Godfather IV. One typical result here. This clearly is a hoax and should be deleted as such asap. Life, Liberty, Property 23:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Wizardman 18:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chelsee Healey

Chelsee Healey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

• Non-notable Happylabel 11:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - her role in a notable TV show as someone who is, as far as I can tell, a main character: that's WP:BIO passed right there. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 12:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I watched Waterloo Road, and I had to do a google image search before I knew who she was... not exactly a main character, but a regular one. MorganaFiolett 13:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmm. Is that notable enough? WP:BIO isn't really letter-of-the-law on this, and for that reason I'm gonna keep my suggestion as keep. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 22:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Significant role in notable TV show.--Bedivere 21:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - Remarkably anemic Ghits for someone on a current series, but it is a recurring role. --Groggy Dice T | C 01:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Wizardman 18:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raymond Gubbay

Raymond Gubbay (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

• This article is largely unsourced and violates advertising policy Happylabel 11:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP-SPAM. The subject may or may not be notable, but his PR sheet doesn't qualify as an encyclopedia article. Llajwa 15:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Undoubtedly notable, listed in Who's Who, articles in a major newspaper [47][48]. Rewrite if necessary but don't delete.--Bedivere 21:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Bedivere. Highly notable music impressario, but pending a rewrite most of the current article may need to be trimmed back to a small stub to avoid the promotional language. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted, per WP:CSD#A7. Non-admin closure. --Agüeybaná 22:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caoimhinn barr

Caoimhinn barr (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Tagged as db-bio, the creator removed the tag without any explanation. The subject of the article does not assert any notability that I can classify. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the db-bio tag - because I hadn't got a clue what it was!!

Not because I was trying to break any Wikipedia guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moville red (talk • contribs) 11:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment to above The reason I tagged it as db-bio is that there doesn't seem to be any real notability behind this journalist. I kind of hate to keep swinging that "notability" bat around, but as far as I can find, there are two references I could find with this (rather unique) name: one appears to be an online petition [49] and the other is a footnote at [50]. There are a number of points listed at WP:N which discuss some of these policies. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment You were right to tag it for speedy. This is a bio about a non notable journalist. It should be deleted as such, and I reapplied the tag. --Cyrus Andiron 18:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portsmouth 7 Reading 4

Portsmouth 7 Reading 4 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD; article about a non-notable football match characterized solely by a weird final result. We discussed the issue on the Football WikiProject, surfacing a large consensus in support for deleting the article. Have your say. Angelo 11:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Angelo 11:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not a cup final, just an ordinary league match. Breaking a Match of the Day record is hardly impressive. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - worth a mention in Football records in England but that's it, no need for a full article. Qwghlm 11:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. ArtVandelay13 11:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. - PeeJay 11:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, it was a fun match but not notable in any way other than the number of goals scored (which iirc isn't even a Premier League record). AllynJ (talk | contribs) 12:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• It is a Premier League record, it was the first time 11 goals had been scored in a top-flight match since 1988 (before the Prem started), but I still don't feel it merits a whole article to itself, so Delete ChrisTheDude 12:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - An unusual, but not unheard of scoreline. I don't think it's particularly notable. I can see a case for an article about Arbroath's 36-0 with over Bon Accord, or Australia's 32-0 win over American Samoa, but there have been many games with similar scorelines to this one, and they have all been long since forgotten. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 12:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • comment Arbroath 36 Bon Accord 0 is already around.
• Delete Just an eyebrow-raiser. We may as well have Walsall 8 Torquay United 4, and all the other slightly higher than usual scores. Totnesmartin 14:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Baggsy me creating Gillingham 10 Chesterfield 0, I still remember how excited that game got me at the age of 15 :-) ChrisTheDude 14:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Only if you promise not to create Man Utd 9 Ipswich 0.... the pain... Oh, and delete by the way as all have said - non-notable bar a one-line mention in the records. The Rambling Man 20:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Barnet's first ever league match was a 7-4 loss to Crewe. perhaps that one needs writing too? (oh, tht's a delete, BTW). Grutness...wha? 00:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Merge any salvageable content into Reading F.C. season 2007-08. Not notable in its own right, but bears mention in the season article. robwingfield ^«T•C» 15:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge salvageable content per Rob. — Dale Arnett 16:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge per all above. I did try and wikify the article a bit, but I agree with it's deletion. — jacĸrм (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. An unusual scoreline but not a particularly notable one. Merge any usuable content into the Portsmouth F.C. and /or Reading F.C. articles. --Malcolmxl5 01:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As per User:Qwghlm. Axl 21:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Gross recentism. There have been and will be higher scoring matches. Not notable enough for its own article. Robotforaday 19:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This does not seem like a good Wiktionary candidate to me because of the original research, but if anyone wants the deleted content for that purpose, just ask and I'll provide it. Chick Bowen 02:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ryona

Ryona (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NEO. I quote the creator: "please edit or delete if nessecary" Punkmorten 11:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or, probably more appropriate, transfer to Wiktionary. There is information on YouTube that seems to bear this out, but that just makes the entry original research. Accounting4Taste 20:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Youtube is not a reliable source by any means. --NightRider63 02:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. W.marsh 20:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mobile acting as dongle to PC

Mobile acting as dongle to PC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I'm so sorry to trouble you with this. The {prod} was removed from this article, which is... well, I'm not sure what it is, to be honest. But I'm pretty sure that it isn't an encyclopedia article on a noteworthy subject. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete under WP:CSD#A1 or WP:CSD#G1, it makes no sense and really has no context to understand it. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy under half-advertisement criterion as well.Kfc1864 talk _{my edits} 13:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Snowball delete. I'm not quite sure this fits into any of the speedy criteria, but it is pretty clear that this isn't an encyclopedia article. It reads more like a product requirements statement than anything. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Incomprehensible in its current form - probably fits A1, or even G1. As far as I can make out it's trying to be a how to guide, so not much encyclopaedic potential even if it did make sense. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 21:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, understandable if you know the jargon, but unnotable and basically reads like a product elevator pitch, or a dumbed-down patent application. A Bluetooth dongle is a pretty interesting idea but presents certain security implications. --Dhartung | Talk 09:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lauren Elliott

Lauren Elliott (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I originally speedied this under CSD:A7, but upon second thought, I'm not sure this isn't for real, so I bring it to AFD for further consideration (also Lauren elliott) -- RoySmith (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I suspect I acted rashly and should withdraw my nomination. What made me originally think this was a fake was the odd writing style, the fact that it was written by a first-time contributor, and the tie-in with Eleanor Roosevelt. It all sounded like an elaborate bit of vandalism or a vanity article. Now that some references have been put forth, I realize I jumped to a conclusion I shouldn't have. I'd still like to see a reference for the Roosevelt relationship. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete both of them, no notability by WP:BIO. Nyttend 00:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a reason to delete this page. The guy was one of the people that created the edutainment-elearning industry back in the 80's and generated the bases of edu video games that are played today. It could be more biopic, but I think that will come in time. AJS 02:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)ajschmidt

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. The database locked while I was in the middle of the process and I wasn't able to complete it. Thanks for fixing it up for me. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Co-creator of Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego? is definitely notable (under the "major contribution" clause). [51][52] Putting aside the "edutainment" jargon and the podcast (PNN). The other co-creator got a NYT obit, which underlines some of the importance of the game. --Dhartung | Talk 13:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Important figure in the industry. I just expanded it a bit. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 20:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Are you kidding? Carmen Sandiego is one of the most influential games of all time. Bacchiad 13:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. References would be nice. --Sc straker 01:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. What does "Delete both of them" mean? Delete Eleanor Roosevelt?--Bedivere 21:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual Harassment Panda

Sexual_Harassment_Panda (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

I have nominated this article for deletion per Wikipedia's policy for articles regarding specific episodes of a TV Series such as Critic Reviews and Characters involved etc. This page has been edited several times with little or no change towards complying with WP:EPISODE. --Amaraiel 16:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep - I think that the article can be worked upon to help bring it to correct standards - not to mention that there are many episodes that have less content than this, South Park or not. I hardly see this as a reason to delete a single episode out of the many on this list, or across Wikipedia for that matter. ≈ The Haunted Angel 01:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - cant see any reason for the opposite.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Insatiable56 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep with no prejudice to merge - WP:EPISODE asks that people do not list episode articles for AFD and instead urge editors to engage in merge discussions. Will ^(talk) 13:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep - Needs some cleaning up, but deleting is not a solution. --Endless Dan 13:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per above. Rocket000 19:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the comments above, do not harm the Sexual Harassment Panda under any circumstances. Burntsauce 22:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Needed cleanup is not a reason for article deletion. You're making Sexual Harassment Panda sad. --SarekOfVulcan 23:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. And when one little panda puts his furry little AfD in another panda's Article, that makes me a very sad panda. {Panda Suit{67.188.106.35}} —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per above. This could definitely be expanded upon, as I am starting to see more and more references outside of the one episode. Turlo Lomon 09:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Need for cleanup means you should clean up, not propose AfD. Bacchiad 13:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to somewhere. The article is a short stub that reads in full: "The Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia is a term used by the present Government of the Czech Republic to refer to the military presence and force-backed political intervention of the Soviet Union in Czechoslovakia following the invasion of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic by Warsaw Pact forces in 1968 to suppress a period of political liberalization known as the Prague Spring. The Czech government claims that the occupation regime lasted from the suppression of the Prague Spring until the Velvet Revolution in 1989, shortly before the collapse of the Soviet Union." – Consensus is that this term, at least with this sparse content, should not be the subject of a separate article, but that the term should be covered (if at all) in one of the appropriate historical articles. I think Prague spring will do, but editors' consensus may change that target. If we have sufficient historiographical content specifically about the term "Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia" (as opposed to historical content about that period of time), the article may be spun off again under WP:SS. Sandstein 21:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia

Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a POV-fork of Prague Spring and History of Czechoslovakia (1948–1989), created by a user with the long history of disruption User:Digwuren (see blocklog: [53]), who also created (and attempted to re-create) already deleted articles Denial of Soviet occupation and Estophobia. This ill-sourced article intended only to represent one side's point of view as the only correct. Note that the topic is havily occupied by a number of related accounts from Estonia (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Digwuren, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DLX).--Dojarca 03:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to History of Czechoslovakia (1948–1989) the article is unusable at the present state and the topic is a WP:POVFORK anyway Alex Bakharev 06:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If turned into redirect, the previous content should be deleted--Dojarca 20:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• If you are proposing a redirect, Normalization (Czechoslovakia) would be a more suitable article. Martintg 10:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect and blast this "content" as a clear POV fork. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. 1110 hits for "soviet occupation"+czechoslovakia in google scholar [54] and 699 hits in google books [55]. Also acknowledged officially by the Czech Republic [56] Martintg 10:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the obvious POV-fork and redirect somewhere, preferrably Prague Spring (those are the events I would expect to see under the search term, rather than the post-invasion period of "Normalization"). Digwuren is not banned yet? Duja► 11:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• The post-invasion period? So Czechoslovakia was invaded but not occupied? That must be a first in military history. Martintg 11:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• My admittedly less-than-perfect sense of English says that "occupation" means both the act of occupation (i.e. invasion) and the period where the occupying forces control the territory. Your insinuations that I deny that Czechoslovakia was occupied from 1968 onwards are not welcome. As far as I can see, the matter is covered well in History of Czechoslovakia (1948–1989), Prague Spring and Normalization (Czechoslovakia). If an author has a problem with title, tone or focus of a certain article, the correct course of action, in my opinion, is not to create a separate article that would emphasize one side of the medal. I don't have a problem with word "occupation" in the title whatsoever. OTOH, I do have a problem with WP:POINT and disruption. The article is apparently created to support the "series" presented in Template:Soviet occupation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), and a similar recent attempt with "Allegations of apartheid" did not work out well.Duja► 12:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The Soviet Union occupied Czechoslovakia from the end of the Second World War to the Velvet Revolution, it's hardly adequate to suggest a redirect to the Soviet invasion of 1968. I don't see what it's a POV fork of, who actually doesn't consider the Soviet occupation to be exactly that? It's not disruption for editors to write new articles, whether they survive the cut or not. There's scope to write an article, focusing on the occupation, which is compatable with the article on the historical period for the country but which gives extra information. The article as it exists now is obviously at an embryonic stage, but so are many others. Nick mallory 11:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete current article history and create new redirect to Prague Spring#Occupation. If the creator of this article had acted in good faith, he would have started by proposing that the section Occupation be split off from the article Prague Spring. He could even have been bold and done the split himself. It is most likely however that he would have been reverted. For some reason the editors of Prague Spring have decided to keep the article together. This article is thus a classic POV-fork. It also tries to push the unacceptable POV the Czechoslovakia, a sovereign member state of the United Nations was occupied territory from 1969 to 1989. -- Petri Krohn 12:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Since the the occupation came after the Prague Spring, how is it a POV fork? Makes as much sense as saying September is a POV fork of August Martintg 12:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Your are asking a question you should have asked at Talk:Prague Spring: Why not split the article? Having read the section Occupation and the new information that has only come to light in the 1990s, it is easy for me to see why the editors of that article have decided not to split it. -- Petri Krohn 13:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Since there was never any discussion to split the article on the talk page, this is only speculation on your part. But you raise a good point, Prague Spring artcle is more about the subsequent occupation rather than the Prague Spring itself, so this article needs more material on the reforms, and the material on the occupation should moved to Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia article. Later on Normalization (Czechoslovakia) should be merged into Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia , since both are referenced in equal magnitude in the literature. BTW, the term "Normalization" is acknowledged as Soviet POV and is generally referred to in quotes in the literature. Martintg 13:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Prague spring. I think that most people expect that the liberalization of Czechoslovakia, the Soviet invasion, and the Soviet occupation and aftermath belong together. Mandsford 16:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect This is covered in the article Prague Spring. JdeJ 16:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect and warn the nominator with a block for recurring personal attacks and bogus claims in AfD nominations (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denial of Soviet occupation and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 October 4#Template:Soviet occupation). The personality of Digwuren is irrelevant here. At some point Dojarca has to learn this. Colchicum 17:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Once Encarta has an article Soviet Occupation of Czechoslovakia [57] what's wrong with having one on WP? Arguments like WP:POVFORK, History of Czechoslovakia (1948–1989) are not valid simply because there was much more to the history during the period than just Soviet occupation. Prague Spring is a chapter in this story, not vice versa like suggested by some.--Termer 01:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Article says nothing, only defines the period after 1968 as an occupation. Perhaps for a few weeks one could make that case, but once a new government was installed, even an undemocratic puppet government, it is no longer an occupation. Would the author call the entire period from 1946 to the present the "US occupation of Italy"? We invaded them, and have had a military presence there ever since. Fee Fi Foe Fum 03:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thats an interesting opinion. In case we'd follow that logic, Germany during the WWII after installing the puppet government in Norway for example did no longer occupy the country.--Termer 14:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Rename. This period of Czechoslovakia history (between Prague Spring and Velvet revolution) is covered already in History_of_Czechoslovakia#Aftermath. I suggest to create a separate article about this period under a more neutral title. One could also create articles describing Operation PROGRESS in Czechoslovakia by the KGB, or other specific aspects of Communist Czechoslovakia. As it is, the article is too POVish and provides little encyclopedic content. However this is a reason for improvement, not for deletion.Biophys 22:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The term is widely used.--Molobo 02:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Nick.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. The subject is inevitably politicized, and there will be debates over how to frame this period of history, including the appropriate name. But the period from Prague Spring to Velvet Revolution is certainly a distinct and notable phase of Czech history, which (under Wikipedia norms) should be covered both in a general survey and in its own article. Llajwa 15:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Do not delete - the Soviet invasion to Czechoslovakia is commonly referred to as "occupation"; probably redirect to Prague Spring as duplicate. (The correct handling of these events of Czechoslovak history should probably be sorted out at the appropriate talk page.) - Mike Rosoft 16:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Prague Spring per Jdej and others. POV forks are forbidden for a good reason. We just can't have exceptions now and then to suit someone's political agenda. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Prague Spring#Occupation. It is unnecessary, and unwise, to have two articles covering an identical topic, especially when one of those articles is a stub. DrKiernan 08:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Notable topic, widely used term. Also advice nominator to stop nominating everything for deletions and makingin personal attacks together with them. Suva Чего? 05:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve per Nick mallory and Molobo. Per Suva, warn nominator against personally motivated nominations in the future. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 10:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Prague Spring. Borism 11:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• delete fork with opinionated title. If anything, the event is properly called "intervention". `'Míkka 23:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge. Yes, "Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia" was used in the West from 1968 to 1989, which explains the google count, but "Soviet" in the title for everybody also referred to the other members of the Warsaw pact. Particularly, the fact that "German troops have entered Czechoslovakia for the second time in 50 years" was felt to be rather disturbing in the West (particularly in the German federal republic, of course). Provided that the view that only the Soviet Union occupied Czechoslovakia is clearly attributed to whoever says so (because it basically is not true), I have no problem with a merge. And per DrKiernan, no need to keep this thing alive on its own - take it to the heart and lung machine, nurse.--Pan Gerwazy 13:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"Provided that the view that only the Soviet Union occupied Czechoslovakia is clearly attributed to whoever says so (because it basically is not true"True Soviet Union also used puppet forces it controlled but likewise we talk about Nazi Germany invasion of Poland not German-Slovak invasion of Poland even though Germany used forces of Slovakia-even when of course Slovaks position was more independent then that of Communist Germany or Communist Poland.--Molobo 14:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Well, if you like Google searches, let's look e.g. at some (79) results for "British occupation of India" at Google Scholar (but the article for this is named British rule in India) and for some (467) results on "French occupation of Algeria" at Google Books (the article is French rule in Algeria). I could find more results especially for French colonies in Africa but I think one get's the point. Note, that there were military administrations that ruled in both countries in above two cases, not just military presence. In contrast Czechoslovakia had its own national government. There was the Soviet military presence, but should I name countries e.g. with American military bases now, that exist despite frequent protests in some of those countries? So, if one wants to specifically describe the Soviet military presence - military units, their location etc. then let's create something like "Soviet military presence in Czechoslovakia", but if we want to name this "occupation" and extend the term ("force-backed political intervention", "occupation regime lasted until 1989" and alike) then let's apply the same criteria for numerous other cases with Cold War counterparts of the Soviet Union. Cmapm 17:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete by WP:SNOW and clear consensus per WP:CON, because it consists of material that is WP:OR, WP:ESSAY, WP:SOAP, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NPOV. It violates those policies as well as WP:V, WP:N, and WP:NOT. This is not a speedy delete, and should not be "salted". Bearian 18:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pario

Pario (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This is an essay promoting something called "Pario" as a replacement for the time-honored equals sign. This article is a weird hybrid of promotion, original research, and new age psychobabble, and is a textbook example of what Wikipedia is not. Bongwarrior 09:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable unverifiable unencyclopedically formulated ("Please feel free to contact me") original research, and marked "David R. Woodward © 2007" to boot!  --Lambiam 09:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete under WP:CSD#G1 patent nonsense. If you address the grammar and spelling, you're left with an article which makes no sense. Yngvarr (t) (c) 09:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy also under WP:CSD#A7, no assertion of notability. The only words that you really need to read on the whole page are "To this end, I propose..." (which usually means WP:SCHOOL, but that's not a speedy). Deltopia 12:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I am just spitballing here, but usually when one makes a a statement such as "feel free to contact me", there's a good chance that original research contributed significantly to the article. I'm pretty sure that there is no way to verify any of the information since this is one man's proposal. --Cyrus Andiron 13:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. It is a gross violation of WP:NOR, WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV as well as WP:V and WP:N. Some statements could possibly be sourced, but would violate WP:SYNTH. This article cannot be saved in my opinion. --TreeKittens 15:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW, anybody? Deltopia 16:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NOT#OR. This seems to be unverifiable original research. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 18:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Aarktica 12:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brian D. Weiss

Brian D. Weiss (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

• Queried speedy delete. Seems a heroic enough action to warrant discussion instead of plain deletion. Anthony Appleyard 08:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

:*Copyvio see here - [58]. I also found a google hit on "Brian Weiss Orleans" here - [59] - which describes completely different heroic actions ascribed to (now Captain) Weiss during Katrina. This one - [60] - is a NY Times article that briefly describes Lt. Weiss and another guy, Lt. Ceravalo, respirating the patients by hand. Finally, according to the New Orleans police website, Capt. Weiss is - [61] - head of the traffic division, but that seems hardly notable. I suggest rewrite with more sources, and drop a lot of the Jewish focus of the orginial article -- I would WP:sofixit myself, except I'm already going to be late to work from too much dinking around on wikipedia :) Deltopia 12:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Don't delete for a few, pls; I'm going to try to clean it up (within the next 45 minutes, anyway). Deltopia 16:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• OK... I am not calling it a GA at this point, but I did my best. I now vote Keep. Deltopia 16:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete -- not clear how this is likely to get beyond stub-class. Willing to consider I might be wrong, of course... --SarekOfVulcan 23:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Worthy individual, but fails the (imprecise) WP:BLP1E test. It would be wonderful if we could document all the heroic efforts made by everyone during this or any other disaster, but that's not really our remit. For comparison, Wesley Autrey received media coverage as well, but was also decorated by the city government and by the President. We aren't discounting the heroics, but there isn't much to say about them. --Dhartung | Talk 09:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Dhartung. --Sc straker 17:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with regret; doesn't seem to satisfy Wikipedia policy.--Bedivere 21:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep - Consensus is that there is sufficient reliable source material independent of Brant Secunda and his control for the topic to meet general notability guidelines. Not that this is related to AfD issues, but as for NPOV, it is not Wikipedia's place to balance out reliable source material. If the Wikipedia article is reflective of existing reliable source material, then the article may meet WP:NPOV, even if the reliable source material is POV on balance. -- Jreferee t/c 03:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brant secunda

Brant secunda (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I came across this article a couple of days ago, and I've been thinking about it since that time. I follow WP:BLP and the notability standards for people, and even the notability standards for religious people that has not been adopted. I decided to bring it here to see what everyone else thinks. I apologize for the length of my comments.

This article has been created at least once before, apparently by the subject's brother (judging by the user name). In July 2007, it was speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7, as blatant advertising and no assertion of notability. It's back now in near-identical form, including the advertising, except it claims notability with an assertion that he "share(s) Huichol traditions with people worldwide."

Online research shows that's exactly what he does, and he does it regularly. I found dozens of links to vacation packages and retreats and seminars to "join world famous shaman Brant Secunda and (someone else) for extraordinary weekend program/weekend workshop/," for the low price of $230 or however much he charges. The metroactive.com link in the EL section, an article in a Santa Cruz, California, even mentions a weekend workshop for $185. I counted 20 of these before I stopped. I was leaning toward placing a G11 tag on it, because three of its paragraphs are identical to the version NawlinWiki deleted under G12 in July. But here's where it gets fuzzy for me.

On Google Books, there are a few books that briefly mention him, but I'm not sure if they rise to the level required for notability, either on their own or together. In this book about rituals in general, his claims of powers imported from his mentor are dismissed in a couple of lines. Here is a mention of his name only, and a book on shamanism has a paragraph not on his current "abilities" but on his trip to Mexico to find a particular legendary shaman. Other books like The Complete Idiot's Guide to Shamanism, have his name only listed in the appendix under "shamans".

So my question is, how do these books, along with the commercial nature of the available references and ELs, figure into notability? Should we even include the books, under WP:BLP? Do links to weekend retreats or vacation packages or workshops, created for or by Secunda, demonstrate notability? Could this become another BLP battleground? I don't know, which is why I've brought it here for discussion.

A shaman of such repute to the modern Huichols doesn't have a mention in Huichol, save a 'see also' at the bottom of the page added by the article's creator in July and left in place – undisturbed and redlinked – until this article was reborn. That by itself makes me wonder about his importance and relevance to the Huichol people. Let the discussion begin. - KrakatoaKatie 08:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per rationale of nominator. If he's been teaching for 20 years and establishing cultural centers, and there's external documentation, as above, he shouldn't be deleted. See WP:JNN.--SarekOfVulcan 23:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course, if you want to include a reference to that book dissing him, that would be (imho) encyclopedic and help balance the article...--SarekOfVulcan 23:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as notable and not so POV that it ruins the article. Bearian 00:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Camp Biscayne

Camp Biscayne (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and copyvio mostly copied directly from a brochure, though probably not a violation since it's from many years ago. Clarityfiend 08:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nn, spam--Victor falk 12:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under G3.Kfc1864 talk _{my edits} 13:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • G3? Doesn't look like blatant vandalism...
• Delete -- doesn't assert notability of subject. If evidence can be found that this particular camp had something unique about it that makes it encyclopedic, willing to change vote.--SarekOfVulcan 23:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It has received significant coverage in this history book about Florida. The Miami Herald wrote an article about it free article preview. Google news archives shows other stories with at least some coverage of it, despite it not being in existence since 1925. --Oakshade 04:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Both mention it, but do not support any notability that I can see. Clarityfiend 05:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• They're more than just "passing mentions" as the coverage appears in depth. As per WP:NOTE, being the subject of secondary reliable sources establish notability. --Oakshade 06:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The Google News references appear to frequently be mentioning the current neighborhood, rather than the historical camp. Should the article be retargeted to cover the neighborhood, with additional coverage of how it got its name?--SarekOfVulcan 12:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Some of them are of the current neighborhood, which arguably qualifies in itself as notable, but there's enough coverage of the historic camp too to establish notability.--Oakshade 15:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• DO NOT DELETE - This article is the only place on the web which contains information on the historic Camp Biscayne. I am the curator of the Barnacle Historic State Park and there is currently a volunteer is is typing up the rest of the information (the guests list) which will be downloaded very soon. Guests listed in the hotel register include Alexander Graham Bell, 1920s aviator Ruth Rowlands Nichols (the woman's record holder for distance, altitude, and speed), William Grisby McCormick, several other McCormicks, some Rockefellers, Kirk Munroe (author), Mary Barr Munroe, Nathanial Lord Britten (Director, New York Botanical Gardens), Henry Howard (a prominent yachtsman, and holder of over 100 patents), F.Grey Griswold, and many other individuals who were well known in their communities or their fields during this period. Many of them were well known at the time among sportsmen, especially yachtsmen.

We will be putting the Camp Biscayne sign up, and further references. The undated brochure is in our archives, as is the hotel register. There are only three books written about the Barnacle. Munroe's autobiography (now out of print) includes a brief chapter on Camp Biscayne. The Barnacle, Camp Biscayne, the Biscayne Bay yacht Club, Ransom School, and the Women's Club were the principal organizations in the Grove 100 years ago as they are today. But of these only Camp Biscayne is no longer extant. You should know that Ralph Munroe has an almost cult following among sailors of traditional wooden boats. Many of the leading yachtmen of the day owned Munroe boats and many of these were guests at Camp Biscayne. Please leave it up we will take your views seriously and strive to improve this site. Yours truly, Susannah Worth, Curator, The Barnacle Historic State Park. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susannah Worth (talk • contribs) 18:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as passing notability and sourcing. Bearian'sBooties 20:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per historical significance, but could probably use a little more sourcing and assertion that the topic is significant. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raman Prinja

Raman Prinja (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)